§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Sandhurst).
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly.
§ [The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
§ Clause 1:
§ Substitution of provisions for Section 7 of the principal Act.
§ 1. The following sections shall be substituted for section seven of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which relates to the revocation of certificates of naturalization:—
§ Revocation of certificates of naturalization.
§ "7.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalization granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by order, revoke the certificate, and may, if he thinks fit, before so doing refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified.
§ "(2) Where a certificate of naturalization has been granted during the present war to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked, and if such question shall be answered in the affirmative shall revoke the certificate, but this provision shall not apply to a person who at birth was a British subject.
§ "(3) Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary of State may by order revoke 372 a certificate of naturalization granted by him in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted either—
- "(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty; or
- "(b) has during any war in which His Majesty is engaged unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of an enemy state, or been engaged in or knowingly associated with any business carried on in such manner as to assist the enemy in such war; or
- "(c) has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate been sentenced by any court in His Majesty's dominions to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude; or
- "(d) was not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate; or
- "(e) has since the date of the grant of the certificate been for a period of not less than seven years ordinarily resident out of His Majesty's dominions otherwise than as a representative of a British subject, firm, or company carrying on business, or an institution established, in His Majesty's dominions, or in the service of the Crown, and has not maintained substantial connection with His Majesty's dominions; or
- "(f) remains a subject of a state at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalization within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status;
§ "(4) An inquiry under this section shall be held by a committee constituted for the purpose by the Secretary of State, presided over by a person (appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Lord Chancellor) who holds or has held high judicial office, and shall be conducted in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct:
§ "Provided that any such inquiry may. if the Secretary of State thinks fit, instead of being held as aforesaid be held by the High Court, and the practice and procedure on any inquiry so held shall be regulated by rules of court.
§ "A committee appointed under this section shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge 373 thereof on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:—
- "(a) the enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and the issue of a commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad; and
- "(b) the compelling the production of documents; and
- "(c) the punishing persons guilty of contempt;
§ "(5) Where a person to whom a certificate of naturalization has been granted in some other part of His Majesty's dominions is resident in the United Kingdom, the certificate may he revoked in accordance with this section by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Government of that part of His Majesty's dominions in which the certificate was granted.
§ "(6) Where the Secretary of State revokes a certificate of naturalization, the revocation shall have effect from such date as the Secretary of State may direct, and the Secretary of State may order the certificate to be given up and cancelled, and any person refusing or neglecting to give up his certificate shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds
§ Effect of revocation of certificates.
§ "7A.— (1)Where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the Secretary of State may by order direct that the wife and minor children (or any of them) of the person whose certificate is revoked shall cease to be British subjects, and any such person shall thereupon become an alien; but except where the Secretary of State directs as aforesaid, the nationality of the wife and minor children of the person whose certificate is revoked shall not be affected by the revocation, and they shall remain British subjects:
§ "Provided that it shall be lawful for the wife of any such person within six months after the date of the order of revocation to make a declaration of alienage, and thereupon she and any minor children of her husband and herself shall cease to be British subjects and shall become aliens:
§ "Provided also that the Secretary of State shall not make any such order as aforesaid in the case of a wife who is a natural-born British subject unless he is satisfied that if she had hold a certificate of naturalization in her own right the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Act, and the provisions of this Act as to referring cases for inquiry shall apply to the making of any such order as they apply to the revocation of a certificate.
§ "(2) The provisions of this section shall, as respects persons affected thereby, have effect in substitution for any other provisions of this Act as to the effect upon the wife and children of any person where the person ceases to be a British subject and such other provisions shall accordingly not apply in any such case.
374§ "Where a certificate of naturalization is revoked the former holder thereof shall be regarded as an alien and as a subject of the state to which he belonged at the time the certificate was granted."
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), to delete "may" ["the Secretary of State may by order"], and to substitute "shall." The noble Lord said: The object of the Amendment that I propose to ask your Lordships to agree to is to make it compulsory on the Home Secretary, if a naturalisation certificate has been obtained by false representations, or fraud, or by the concealment of material circumstances, to cancel that certificate. In other words, under those conditions the Home Secretary shall have no option but to cancel the naturalisation certificate.
§ May I remind the House of what is sometimes forgotten—namely, what a, naturalisation certificate is? It is a solemn pledge and contract between the State and the Sovereign of the State and the individual concerned. It gives a great many privileges to the alien who comes here and wishes to become a British subject. What are those privileges? They are very great indeed. They are to receive titles and decorations, and also, and it is not the least of those honorary decorations, he may be made a Member of His Majesty's Privy Council, a body to which it is a great honour to any individual to belong and which is more limited in numbers than any other rank or order in the British Isles. He also becomes eligible to be a Member of the House of Commons, and he is able to become a member of the various great municipal bodies or county councils of this country and to hold high office in those bodies, such as chairman, or mayor of the municipality. He also becomes qualified to sit upon the Bench and administer justice in this country, and last, but not least, he is able to vote for the return of Members of Parliament and also at local elections. In fact he is given all the rights of citizenship just as if he had been born a native of this country.
§ It seems to me, therefore, there are very great obligations upon that man that he must keep and keep entirely, and that not only by word of mouth must he swear allegiance to the Sovereign and to the State of which he has become a citizen, but he must not engage in anything which involves disloyalty either to the State or to the Sovereign himself. Of course I 375 quite admit that I am not one of those who think that there should be a wholesale cancellation of certificates of naturalisation. All I am asking the House to do is to insist that in all cases of fraud or misrepresentation, or concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State should have no option but to cancel the certificate. I cannot understand why in this Bill there is so much put entirely into the hands the Secretary of State for the time being in regard to this matter. Also I do not like what appears later on in the clause, but which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is going to strike out—no doubt he will tell us why—and which provides that "the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked." If anything my Amendment is made stronger by what it is proposed to strike out, though the noble Viscount may put in other words to that effect, although I confess I am not very anxious for those powers to be given to an advisory body. I would much rather see the duty laid upon the Secretary of State, either by himself or through his officials and expert advisers, to decide whether a certificate had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, rather than, what is proposed in this Bill, that there should be this Advisory Committee, consisting probably of Members of the House of Commons and members of this House as well.
§ I am one of those who are rather anxious as to the tendency of the Government to put off on to advisory and other committees the responsibility which they ought to have themselves, and for this reason, that if you have the Secretary of State, a responsible Minister of the Crown, taking action himself, he is responsible for the action which he takes. On the other hand, if you allow him to appoint a committee, as was done the other day, presided over by a learned Judge, and when they decide that they will sit in camera and the general public know nothing of the reasons for the decision arrived at, then the public have no idea of the facts. The Secretary of State himself comes forward in Parliament and says, "You must not blame me; I have had nothing to do with it. It is quite true that the general public do not know the reasons for the committee's decision because the committee was sitting in camera and I cannot divulge the reasons, but I am advised that the certificate ought not to be 376 cancelled." I venture to think it is undesirable that a Minister of the Crown should be able to shelter himself behind a committee responsible to nobody at all, and that is what seems to be going on now. The desire of the Government when in difficulties is always to shift the responsibility on to somebody else.
§ It may be said by the noble Viscount in charge of this Bill, "Why not trust the Home Secretary?" I am sure we should be quite ready to trust the present Home Secretary in these matters to a very large extent. But there is not only the present Home Secretary to be considered; there are future Home Secretaries who may deal with this subject; and we have had experience already of what has happened under other Home Secretaries. What did Mr. McKenna say when he was Home Secretary in the Liberal Government? Speaking in the House of Commons on May 17, 1915, he admitted that powerful influences had been brought to bear to obtain certificates, and he took credit to himself for having resisted those influences to some extent.
§ This shows that great and influential pressure was put upon the Home Secretary to give certificates, and that he had been unable to resist it entirely. During the first five months of the war ninety-seven Germans and thirty Austrians—127 in all—received certificates of naturalisation. Since then sixty-three more Germans or Austrians have been naturalised. It is only fair to the present Home Secretary to state that he himself has said in another place that he has not naturalised, and will not naturalise, any German during the war. That is all very well. But it has been done in the past and it may be done in the future. I am perfectly certain that the feeling of the country at the present moment is that you cannot be too strict about the matter and that the power of the Home Secretary to use his own discretion in the matter ought to be taken away from him. It should be put in an Act of Parliament that the Home Secretary "shall" do this certain act, if it is shown that there has been misrepresentation, or fraud, or concealment of material circumstances. I cannot quite understand why the Government should object in these circumstances to make imperative on the Home Secretary, whether he liked it or not, to cancel a certificate of naturalisation.
377
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)
§ LORD BERESFORDI desire to support my noble friend in his Amendment. Those of your Lordships Who are not of a legal turn of mind have great difficulties with this Bill, because it is really a Bill which is an amendment to an Act, and both are mixed up in such an extraordinary manner that it is difficult to know quite how to put down an Amendment. In this case I think your Lordships will see that there is every reason why the word "shall" should be put into the Bill.
The Home Secretary himself, in another place, said—
It is needless to say 'shall' in this particular case. It is quite plain that if he finds fraud after inquiry he will take action. I think that the usual form is quite proper to this case. I have used the word 'shall' in a later Amendment of my own because I want to say that the Secretary of State shall refer to all existing certificates.Well, I want the word "shall" put in here instead of "may." We must remember what has happened. There have been many Home Secretaries in the past, and there will be again. The Home Secretary who brought forward the 1914 Bill used the word "may" almost entirely throughout the Bill, with the result that he naturalised a very large number of aliens after the war, and he himself, and only himself, really administered the Act. I think it is far better to have a Committee, as has been suggested, to which any cases of this sort should be sent and that the word "shall" should be used with regard to the Home Secretary's action when the Committee has found.I find that the present Home Secretary speaking of the words in the Bill, says that the words are the exact words used in the existing Statute of 1914, where the word "may" appears. He then said, "I am prepared to meet members when I believe they are right, but I cannot meet them when I believe they are wrong." He gave in on the one case and put in the word "shall." I cannot see why, if he is right in that particular, those who wish the word "shall" inserted in this particular are wrong. I hope your Lordships will come to the conclusion that, in the circumstances, the fact of the Home Secretary of the day using the word "may," or adapting what "may" means on many occasions, was 378 very prejudicial to the interests of the country. I saw that one lawyer said that "may" does mean "shall." I do not know how you could run a fleet or an army if "may" meant "shall." There is a very great deal of danger of leaving one man to decide whether he "may" do this or "shall" do this. I therefore support the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTAs my noble and gallant friend has pointed out, this is the old story of "may" and "shall," which was debated in the House of Commons, with the result that there was a Division on the subject, and, I believe, 150 odd votes were cast against 27. The action of the Home Secretary is dependent upon his being satisfied that it appears that a certain state of things exists. That being so, it is clear that the revocation of a certificate is really at the discretion of the Secretary of State. The language is in accordance with precedent, and it is within reason that the clause should be as expressed. I submit that it is almost inconceivable that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that a certificate has been obtained by fraud and that he should not then revoke the certificate. The only point of inserting "shall" instead of "may" would be to enable legal compulsion to be applied if the power was not exercised. I hardly think that such a suggestion can carry weight in a case which depends on the judgment of a responsible Minister on a matter of fact. I hope your Lordships will support me in rejecting the Amendment.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYI only wish to say that the legal maxim, which has been quoted by my noble and gallant friend behind me, must, I think, depend a good deal on the context in which the words occur. I should, as a general proposition, absolutely deny that that is the law, but, of course, the context may make a great difference in the meaning. For my own part, I cannot understand why, if the condition is satisfied that fraud has been used, or anything that would disentitle a person to naturalisation, at should be left to the Home Secretary or to any Secretary to determine. The fact is assumed to be proved, and, if the fact is proved, is there any reason why a person should be made a British citizen?
§ LORD WITTENHAMThe Act of 1914, which became law on August 8 of that year, was introduced in your Lordships' House as a British Nationality Bill in February, 1914. It went forward to another place and became law a few days after the war broke out. When it was introduced in your Lordships' House the circumstances were absolutely and entirely different from the circumstances of to-day. In the opinion of many, who thought themselves qualified to judge, it did seem as if we were about to enter on the millenium. You have to regard that statute from the millenium point of view. It was not a war measure at all; it was a consolidating statute. It purported to gather together all the laws that had been passed before into one statute, and it was brought in really to meet the desires of our Colonies. I will emphasise that by reminding your Lordships that the measure was introduced into this House by Lord Emmott. It was argued here entirely from that point of view, and, if I may say so, the only noble Lord who saw that there may be great things involved in it was the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. He said, "This is a most momentous statute," or some words to that effect. It went to the House of Commons; I was in that Chamber at the time; and it really received very little argument there at all. It was treated as a consolidating statute, and on August 8 it became law.
The Home Secretary only the other day in the House of Commons, on the Second Reading of the Bill, gave us one argument for keeping "may" instead of "shall" in this particular position. He said that "may" was in the statute of 1914 and, therefore, if you put in "shall" now, it would stand out rather in contradistinction to the enabling word which was used all through the statute of 1914. But we are wiser now; at least I hope so. We all know that some of the Departments of the State have been too weak, and one of those Departments is, I venture to say so, the Home Office. Before the war, when we did not know where we were, it would have been perfectly safe to give to the Home Secretary all the permissive and enabling powers that the word "may" (strewed all over the statute) gave him. It is not safe now. The Home Office—I am not attacking the Home Secretary for the time being—is weak. I dare not leave this word "may" with the Home Office. 380 It is by their fruits you shall know them, and the Home Office has been weak all through the war.
Again, the next Amendment is that of the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, and it is to take out all the words from "line 13 and", right down to the end of subsection (2) and place them at the end of the Bill. That Amendment does emphasise, I think, our argument. It might have been argued if these words had remained in that the word ought to be "may," because in subsection (2) you say he may refer it to a Committee. If "may" becomes "shall" in that reference to a Committee the two words might not harmonise together. The Home Secretary would be in a difficulty if you said "shall by order revoke" and under subsection (2) give him power to refer it to a Committee. There might be some difficulty there. Now that you are, I hope, going to clear away those words, then the subsection stops at the word "certificate," and it will read thus—
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by Order revoke the certificate.Therefore he may be able to revoke it or not as he pleases, without any reference to any Committee. If your Lordships are willing, as I hope you will be, to substitute "shall" for "may," then there will be no Committee, and the Secretary of State, where fraud or concealment of material circumstances has been found, will have no option. He will have to revoke the certificate. I think the lessons of the war teach us that he ought to be compelled to do it in those circumstances, and that you ought not to allow him any option.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY)I desire to say a few words on this subject. I entirely concur with what was said by the noble and learned Earl who spoke just now, when he pointed out that the meaning of "may" has been "shall"; it depends entirely on the collocation of the words. If the circumstances are such as to show that power is conferred, in certain circumstances where there is a duty to exercise, then, having that power from the duty which is imposed upon him to discharge the function, you infer that he is bound to use the power. 381 My noble and learned friend went on to say that it would be very odd if, where power had been established, it were left to the Secretary of State to say whether the man's name should or should not be taken off the list of naturalised persons. I entirely agree with that; but my noble and learned friend will see that the words of the subsection are:—
Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, or by concealment of material circumstances, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the certificate.You delegate to the Home Secretary the duty of inquiring and making up his mind as to whether or not there has been fraud. Would it not be a most extraordinary thing to say that you are going to undertake the duty of proving that the Home Secretary was satisfied there had been fraud, and yet refused to remove the name? It is impossible. Where you leave it to the Home Secretary to determine whether or not fraud has been established, you cannot say he "shall" do it, because in order to bring the word "shall" into operation you would have to prove that it did appear to the Home Secretary that the certificate had been obtained by fraud; and that he was not exercising the power. That is impossible; you cannot enter into his mind, and where you leave to the Home Secretary the task of deciding whether there has been fraud or not it would be very odd if you used the word "shall."
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYFar be it from me to intervene in a purely legal discussion, but your Lordships should notice that a late Lord Chancellor says "may" ought to be turned into "shall," and the present Lord Chancellor says that "may" ought to remain "may."
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWill the noble Marquess forgive me I said that I should entirely agree with my noble and learned friend if the clause ran—"if the certificate has been obtained by fraud the Secretary of State may remove the name." Then it ought to be "shall." But if—as the clause runs—"it appears to the Home Secretary that the certificate has been obtained by fraud "the words must necessarily be "may."
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think that the only thing to do when two 382 eminent lawyers differ diametrically is to use one's common sense, and to me it seems quite clear that if the Home Secretary is satisfied that certain circumstances of a fraudulent character have arisen then he ought to and must remove the man. Let us therefore say "shall." That is the plain English, and is what we mean.
Let me say that this is not truly a legal argument. In saying this I hope that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will not think that I am in the least disrespectful to the great profession of which he is the head. Public opinion is very much exercised on this matter, and has a right to be much exercised. The public, after all, are suffering very greatly under the war in every way, and they are determined that in these respects justice shall be done—not more than justice, but not less than justice shall be done. They do not understand the legal subtleties between "may" and "shall." What they want us to do is to say in unmistakable terms that where a man has obtained a certificate of naturalisation fraudently his naturalisation should come to an end.
Your Lordships, if I may say so very respectfully, ought to vindicate the view which the public take. I confess that I am a little tired of these discussions between "may" and "shall." We spent a great deal of time upon them on another occasion at an earlier period of the session. Whereas we had been told by certain legal luminaries that "may" always meant "shall," when it came to the point it was found that "may" was not "shall" at all. I venture to think that we had better be guided by common sense, and say in clear terms that when a man has obtained a certificate of naturalisation fraudulently it shall come to an end.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHI should like to ask a question, for I do not quite understand where we are. There is a very positive Amendment next on the Paper. The noble Lord in charge of of the Bill is going to remove the whole of the rest of that subsection. If these words at the end were to remain I think that the ease for the word "may" that we are now discussing is overwhelming, because you cannot put "shall" to a thing and "may if he thinks fit before doing so refer the case to an inquiry." If the whole of the rest of this subsection and the following subsection is going out 383 the case for changing this word "may" to "shall" is irresistible.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTPerhaps I may explain that I propose to take these words out and put them in again at a later stage in the Bill for a reason which I will explain when I make the Motion.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSThe noble and learned Lord who spoke in favour of the Bill as it stands tried to differentiate between the case of a certain fact and something which only appeared to be a fact. He said that if it was established that a man had obtained his certificate by fraud, then of course it ought to be "shall"; but in this case he stated it was not that, but was only a case of where "it appears to the Home Secretary he got the certificate by fraud." But the Home Secretary
§ Resolved in the negative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to delete all words from "certificate," where it secondly occurs in subsection (1), down to the end of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: This is the Amendment to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh called attention. It is really a drafting Amendment. Lines 13 and 14 are left out be-
384§ is to decide it. He is judge and jury, and settles the whole thing. That being so, I venture to say that it is not a matter as to what appears to the Home Secretary. If it appears to the Home Secretary that he did not get it by fraud the Home Secretary will let the man retain his certificate of naturalisation, but where it appears to the Home Secretary that the man did get it by fraud he will not let him retain it. We ought to take the common sense view and put in "shall." Why, if it is admitted by the Home Secretary that a man has got his certificate by fraud, should we want the word "may"? When the word "may" is left in, under these circumstances, it makes people very suspicious.
§ On Question, whether the word "may" shall stand part of the clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 29 Not-Contents, 36.
383| CONTENTS. | ||
| Finlay, L. (L. Chancellor.) | Farquhar, V. (L. Steward.) | Hylton, L. |
| Curzon of Kedleston, E. (L. President.) | Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.) | Kenyon, L. |
| Parmoor, L. | ||
| Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.) (L. Privy Seal.) | Milner, V. | Phillimoro, L. |
| Peel, V. | Pontypridd, L. | |
| Shandon, L. | ||
| Crewe, M. | ||
| Annesley, L. | Somerleyton, L. [Teller.] | |
| Chesterfield, E. | Clinton, L. | Southwark, L. |
| Howe, E. | Colebrooke, L. | Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.) |
| Lytton, E. | Elphinstone, L. | |
| Russell, E. | Emmott, L. | Stanmore, L. [Teller.] |
| Strafford, E. | Gainford, L. | |
| NOT-CONTENTS. | ||
| Somerset, D. | Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.) | Lamington, L. |
| Lee of Fareham, L. | ||
| Lansdowne, M. | St. Davids, V. | Leigh, L. |
| Lincolnshire, M. | Ranksborough, L. | |
| Salisbury, M. | Annaly, L. | Ribblesdale, L. |
| Atkinson, L. | Sanderson, L. | |
| Brassey, E. | Avebury, L. | Strachie, L. [Teller.] |
| Eldon, E, | Balfour, L. | Sudeley, L. |
| Grey, E. | Beresford of Metemmeh, L. [Teller.] | Sumner, L. |
| Halsbury, E. | Sydenham, L. | |
| Jersey, E. | Blythswood, L. | Tenterden, L. |
| Verulam, E. | Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.) | Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.) |
| Harris, L. | Wittenham, L. | |
| Chaplin, V. | Kenry, L. (E. Dunraven and Mount-Earl.) | |
| Hood, V. |
§ cause they come in more properly on page 2, line 30, subsection (2) is left out in order to reinsert the same subsection in a more convenient place—namely, at the beginning of Clause 3, page 5. The reason for this is that the subsection is not one that ought to be read into the existing Section 7 of the Act of 1914, as it would be if it were left where it is at present. It is a provision arising out of the war, and ought not to be read into the permanent Code.
385
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("certificate") to the end of subsection (2).—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to delete "may" ["the Secretary of State may"], and to substitute "shall." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is exactly on the same lines as the earlier Amendment which your Lordships were good enough to accept. I think really in this case it is, if anything, a little stronger. The clause begins "Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary may by order revoke a certificate." I suggest that your Lordships should put in, as you did before, that the Secretary of State "shall" revoke the certificate on the ground that he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate had been granted had done various objectionable acts.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI do not want to interrupt, but may I say that after the last Division we will not oppose this proposal.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Strachie.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit from subsection (3) (b) the word "knowingly," and after "business" to insert "which is to his knowledge." The noble Viscount said: This is really a drafting Amendment. It is intended to make it clear that a man must know that the business with which he has been associated was carried on so as to assist the enemy. That was the meaning of the Amendment inserted in the House of Commons, but the words as they stand in the Bill may not precisely have that effect.
§
Amendment moved—
page 2, line 8, leave out ("knowingly") and after ("business") insert ("which is to his knowledge").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD WITTENHAN moved to delete from subsection (3) (c) the words "within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate." The noble Lord said: Certain grounds are set out under subheads (a) to (e) why a certificate should 386 be revoked. One of them is that which I now ask your Lordships to consider. Why should we limit ourselves under subsection (c) to the fact that within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate a man has been sentenced. Supposing he had been five years and one day from the grant of the certificate—you can multiply the argument ad infinitum. If a man had been sentenced five years and one day from the grant of the certificate he does not come within subsection (c). I need not labour that part of the argument, because it seems to me difficult to answer. I can put it in another way, that where a person seeks a certificate of naturalisation surely he must be a man of a clean past. You do not want to manufacture citizens, either individually or in the gross, from other countries, who at some time or other—I do not care how remote the time—have been within the grip of the law. They must have clean hands and must be able to show a clean record. If these words are left in, that need not be so. The argument does not need to be laboured, and I therefore ask your Lordships to be good enough to remove these words.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate").—(Lord Wittenham.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think that my noble friend is under a misconception as to the scope of these words in the Bill. Of course, if a man had been convicted before he was granted naturalisation it would go to show that he was not of good character at the time that he got it. That is dealt with by the provision that if the Secretary of State is satisfied that he was not of good character at the time he got the certificate then it may be withdrawn, the circumstances mentioned in the Bill being fulfilled. This is levelled not at what happened before he got his certificate of naturalisation, but at what happens afterwards.
A man may be convicted after he has been naturalised, and it was thought by the framers of the Bill that if these convictions happened within, say, five years of his getting naturalisation that might be regarded as showing that in all probability he was not of good character at the time he got the naturalisation. But removing the words "within five years" would leave him open to the consequences 387 of conviction under this clause however many years had elapsed between the naturalisation and the conviction. Of course, the whole object of restricting it in this way was, by bringing it near enough to the date of the naturalisation, to see that the provision operated in a case where there was a presumption that the man really had not been of good character shortly before he got the naturalisation.
I submit to my noble friend that the whole scope of this clause relates to the future, and that the reason I have given is a good one for imposing some limit; otherwise, if this Amendment were adopted, a man who had been here for fifty years and had then committed some crime would have the consequences attaching to him. I do not say that this is a matter of capital importance, but I submit that it is much better for the Bill to remain as drawn.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSIt seems to me that the whole thing is the point of view. I do not think that the Government realise the fact that there are a great many people in this country who do not like Germans. That is the real position. If we have a German who has been made into an Englishman by the Home Office, we should like him to be a very carefully picked and sorted out German of a peculiarly select character. We are not very keen about him even then; but we want him to be of the very cream of Germans. The Lord Chancellor says that if he has committed a crime five years after he has been naturalised we ought to keep him. I would point out to the Government that on the face of it this is a denaturalisation Bill; it is a Bill to get rid of people; and why not get rid of a bad character under the Bill if you can do so? The Lord Chancellor then said that we might get rid of a man under the Bill who had been here for fifty years. Why not? The other day we had that gross case of an ex-Lord Mayor who had been naturalised for forty-five years. Does the House want to keep him?
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSNo; but I am going to move an Amendment shortly which will turn him out. If you leave out these words, and if you afterwards 388 put in a fine as well as imprisonment, you will get rid of him. I think it will be a good thing to get rid of him. I see nothing monstrous about it. I think it is natural that in a denaturalisation Bill, when you have a "bad hat" amongst the Germans, you should shut him out.
LORD SHEFFIELDThe noble Viscount speaks as if all the aliens dealt with by this Bill are Germans. He has Germans on the brain, but Americans and other people are also concerned.
§ LORD PARMOORThe noble Viscount seems to think that this Bill should be based entirely on a view of animosity to Germans. I do not want to say anything about that one way or the other; but the clauses in his Bill are as much applicable to Americans, or to Frenchmen, or to Italians; and surely it is worth while considering that we should not upset all our naturalisation laws and ideas because at the present moment there is a very strong feeling against one nationality. If your Lordships really approach the Bill from that point of view, I think you may do gross injustice to friendly aliens who are living in this country under friendly conditions, and against whom no charge of any kind is made by anybody. I hope, therefore, that this Amendment will not be adopted.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSI should like to point out to the noble and learned Lord that a man could not come under this Bill unless a charge were made against him. A charge must have been made against the man or he would not have been sentenced to penal servitude.
§ LORD BERESFORDI should like to tell the noble and learned Lord that what is irritating the country is that, in a large number of cases, the Germans have not naturalised themselves into Englishmen at all, but into Danes, or Swiss, or Spaniards. Those are the people who are taking over the shops of the older men who have been called up.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI confess that I think this subsection stands upon a different footing from the one we discussed previously. If a man shows himself to be disloyal to the country of his adoption, there should be no question whatever about it, he should be struck out 389 and got rid of instantly. Similarly in the first clause, if a man has acquired his naturalisation by fraudulent misrepresentation that does not admit of discussion—out he goes instantly.
But this is rather different. I do not say that notice ought not to be taken of it, but it is upon a somewhat different footing. This is a question of the character of the man; it has nothing to do with his loyalty or disloyalty to England; for, I am sorry to say, there are a good many Englishmen who have been sent to prison with hard labour, and so forth. I think I must agree with the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, that there ought to be a limit of some sort. It may be said that the term of five years is not a good term, but until somebody can suggest a better I think it holds the field. That is, however, a matter of detail. I do not think you can say that after an American, for instance, has been here for fifty years, and is then convicted of crime, it follows as a matter of course that he should be denaturalised. For these reasons I am afraid that I cannot support the Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD WITTENHAM moved to delete from subsection (3) (c) the words "for a term of not less than twelve months." The noble Lord said: I do not know whether your Lordships think this Amendment stands on the same footing as the last. After all, there are terms of imprisonment of less than twelve months which may involve a somewhat serious breach of or dereliction from the law of the land. It may not be necessary to press this to a Division, but I should like the noble Viscount to explain to me his view why these words should be left in.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 13 and 14, leave out ("for a term of not less than twelve months").—(Lord Wittenham.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy noble friend (Lord Sandhurst) has asked me to say a word about this Amendment. The reason for having these words in is to mark that it is a crime of a somewhat serious nature. If these words were removed, imprisonment for even a day would have the effect. I am sure that is not intended. I was glad to hear the noble 390 Lord say that he was not going to press the matter to a Division, and I hope he will withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, after "servitude" in subsection (3) (c), to insert "or to a fine of not less than £100." The noble Viscount said: I venture to ask your Lordships to add these words at the end.
§
Amendment moved—
page 2, line 15, after ("servitude") insert ("or to a fine of not less than one hundred pounds").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI accept this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, after paragraph (d), in subsection (3), to insert "(e) Was at the commencement of the present war engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, or for the benefit of, or under the control of subjects of such country; or."
§ The noble Viscount said: The words which I am moving to insert were moved, in the House of Commons, and I thought, in reading the discussion, that the argument in favour of them was strong, though the decision in the House of Commons was against them. I am informed that there have been a number of cases in which businesses have been run by naturalised persons, everybody knowing that they were for the benefit of alien enemies. Some individual has been put up here to get naturalised, to call himself an Englishman, to have English "sympathies," and to run a business under English guise when as a matter of fact it is a German business in essence, as regards its profits going to Germans and to Germany. I venture to think that in such a case a man ought not to be naturalised. If a man is naturalised merely for the purpose of helping an enemy business he is not a man we want to have in this country. This Amendment was moved in the House of Commons by Sir John Butcher, and I thought at any rate I ought to bring it forward and take the opinion of your Lordships upon it.
391§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 2, after line 17, insert:
(e) Was at the commencement of the present war engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, or for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of such country, or".—(Viscount St. Davids.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI hope my noble friend will not press this Amendment, and for this reason. The act to which the Amendment refers as having been done by the person in question is one which, at the time at which it occurred, was absolutely innocent. What he says is, if the person "was at the commencement of the present war engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with his Majesty or for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of such country." It gives a retrospective effect to what has happened since. Any man might have a German clerk in whom he has very great confidence. We have had a good many of them in the past; I hope we shall not have so many in the future. But before the war broke out no one thought there was anything wrong in having a German clerk, and if he was a man of marked ability and in the opinion of his employer thoroughly to be trusted he might take him into partnership and the clerk might play a very important part in the business. Under these circumstances, the act being absolutely innocent at the time and having only assumed since a different complexion owing to what has happened, I submit it would be very dangerous in dealing with a subject like naturalisation to make a retrospective enactment of that kind, having the effect of rendering the man liable to be denaturalised in this country. I most respectfully submit to my noble friend that this is not a matter on which the House should be asked to insert words which, as he has told us, were objected to in the House of Commons. He mentioned the name of an hon. and learned friend of mine by whom he said the Amendment was moved. I think if I had the opportunity of talking to Sir John Butcher, whose name he mentioned, on that subject I could convince him that the Amendment was not desirable; and the House of Commons 392 expressed its opinion to that effect. I submit that they were perfectly right, and I think it would be a mistake to put these words in.
LORD SHEFFIELDThis Amendment is really worse than the Lord Chancellor had described. Not only has it a retrospective effect, but it has a prospective effect. We shall have this position: that if one carried on a business with a country which is now a neutral and hereafter went to war, a man who at the beginning of the war had been working in partnership would find himself coming under the guillotine of this proposal. It reminds me of some lines in Voltaire's "La Pucelle,[...]" of what was said by St. Denis in the argument between St. Denis and St. George on which side Providence should be in the event of war between England and France. St. Denis said—
Punissez-les par quelque mauvais tourDe tout le mal qu'ils doivent faire un jour.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ LORD BERESFORD moved, in subsection (3) (e), to omit all words from "His Majesty's Dominions," where those words first occur, down to the end of paragraph (e). The noble Lord said: The reason why I would like to see this done is that it is following what has occurred in Australia. If these lines are left out it will certainly kill all such businesses as Merton and others that have still been going on in our country or our Empire. The Australians and the United States have stopped their business, and there is no share or guild in those places belonging to Germans. This proposal of mine would be in our interest and against the Germans, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 20, leave out from ("dominions") to ("or") in line 25."—(Lord Beresford.)
§ LORD LAMINGTONWould the noble Lord refer also to farmers or only to company business? There is an extremely large number of German farmers in Australia and they cannot be interned.
§ LORD BERESFORDI never said a word about farmers. I am dealing with banks and businesses and manufacturers. In the case of every such concern that has Germans in them in Australia, the Australians did not confiscate their property 393 but paid them a market price for the shares and told them to clear out. I want that to be done here.
§ LORD PARMOORAccording to the noble Lord's Amendment, it would have this effect. You denaturalise a man because he has been abroad for a certain time in the service of the Crown. I merely take that as one of the illustrations—
§ LORD BERESFORDNo.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYYou are striking out those words?
§ LORD PARMOORWe are not dealing here with the question of whether a business is a lawful business or matters of that kind, but if you establish this proposal the effect would be that some one who has been abroad on public service in the service of the Crown, has to be denaturalised because he has been doing patriotic duties abroad.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSThe words may be too wide and I would not like to press the Amendment myself, but I would like to point out that "service of the Crown" is rather a misleading thing as regards naturalised citizens. We have an enormous number of consuls who are foreigners living abroad. They really have nothing to do with Great Britain at all except that they have been naturalised. They were British citizens but many of them could not speak English, and these have been our consuls abroad. There is something in it, after all. The noble and gallant Lord opposite said it is rather ridiculous that when a man like this has come here, been naturalised, and then gone away and had nothing to do with the country except the fact that he has been a consul, he should not be denaturalised. I therefore think there is something to be said for the noble Lord's Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI think the reply has been given to my noble and gallant friend by the noble Lord opposite, and I hope he will not think it necessary to press this to a Division, because, as has been said, it would enable any certificate to be taken away when the owner of it had been absent from the Dominions of the Crown for seven years. I commented upon this when I moved the Second Reading. I will not repeat what I said 394 then. But obviously the mere fact that a man has been absent from the Dominions for a long period should not of itself constitute a ground for revocation of the certificate. Numerous instances could be cited in which a man, though physically outside the Empire, maintains the closest connection with it. I gave examples when moving the Second Reading, and the question with which my noble and gallant friend proposes to deal would, I can only repeat, include a number of commissioned officers and others who are stationed abroad or a foreign consul resident in a foreign country; and those are sufficient reasons for asking my noble and gallant friend not to press his Amendment
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit from subsection (3) (f) all words after "remains," and to substitute other words. The noble Viscount said: It is thought that this will make the meaning of the clause clearer and simpler.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("remains") to the end of line 28 and insert ("according to the law of a State at war wit h His Majesty a subject of that State").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORELord Stuart of Wortley desires to move an Amendment to omit the words "at war with His Majesty." As they also appear in the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, I think the more convenient course will be to leave the words out now, and it will then be open for Lord Stuart of Wortley to move, if necessary, an Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD SHEFFIELDWe know, of course, that it used to be the general principle that a man could not put off his nationality. That has been modified by treaties, but I believe some countries such as Russia prohibit their subjects from repudiating liability to the country in which they were born. We have stipulated that if people sever themselves entirely from their home countries they may become British subjects. If you are going to say that because a man's home country still claims a hold upon him he is to lose his British nationality, what will happen? We know what has happened in the case of Germans in the United States who hate their old country. We must 395 also remember that there are a large number of refugees coming to this country and anxious to shake the dust of their old country off their feet. There ought to be some power enabling such men to repudiate altogether their former allegiance.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSI should be glad if the Lord Chancellor would tell us exactly what the effect of this Amendment will be. As subsection (f) stands, the Home Secretary is obliged to cancel the naturalisation of a man who "remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status." I asked the noble and learned Lord the other day what was the effect of the Delbrück Law, because that makes all the difference to this Amendment. If the effect of the Delbruck Law is retrospective and you pass the clause as it stood, you will get rid of every German who has ever been naturalised who did not get the leave of Germany to cancel his German nationality. That, I believe, is the effect of subsection (f). I believe that, whatever might be the effect on the subjects of other nations, it would get rid of every German. I asked the noble and learned Lord whether the Delbruck Law modified that and was retrospective, and I was not told whether it was or whether it was not. I have an Amendment that I was going to move to this clause which would have the effect of cancelling everything the Delbruck Clause did and get rid of every Germany anyhow. I do not know what the Amendment of the Government does. I am not sure the Amendment of the Government does not do it anyhow. If the Delbrück Law is not retrospective, and you pass this subsection as it stands, I apprehend you will get rid of every German, but I want to know what the effect of the Delbrück Law is, because if it has a retrospective effect I want to move an Amendment to get rid of the Delbrück Law.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe noble Viscount asked me the other day whether the Delbrük Law, Clause 25, was retrospective. I said my impression was that it was not, but that before giving a positive answer I would like to look at it. I have now looked at it, and I think this clause is not retrospective.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhen was it passed?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt came into force on January 1, 1914, and it was passed on July 22, 1913, and here is the particular clause. I am reading from the translation which the Home Office has—
A German who is neither domiciled nor permanently resident in Germany——I am not sure that the language of the translation is very happy. I think "domicilied" there means "having his residence, his house, or his dwelling place there," and the words "nor permanently resident in Germany" refer to the case of a man who has not got a house of his own, a country seat or town house, where he resides, but makes his stay in the country and has continued for a long time in the country although without any seat, as it might be called, there—A German who is neither domiciled nor permanently resident in Germany loses nationality on the acquisition of a foreign nationality if the latter is acquired on his application or on the application of the husband (in the case of a married woman) or legal guardian (in the case of a ward). A married woman or ward, however, only loses nationalty if the conditions are fulfilled under which a discharge could be applied for in accordance with Sections 18, 19.A person does not lose his nationality if, before acquiring a foreign nationality, he has applied for, and received, the written permission of the competent authorities of his home State to retain his nationality. Before the grant of such permission, the German consul is to be consulted.With the assent of the Federal Council, the Imperial Chancellor may order that persons who wish to acquire nationality in a particular foreign State may be refused the permission mentioned in paragraph 2.It is a little involved. I think the effect of it is simply this, that it is provided that if a German has not got a permanent home—that is how I render "domiciled"—nor has resided for a long time, nor is permanently resident in Germany, if he becomes naturalised in a foreign country and acquires a foreign nationality he loses his nationality. Then provision is made that he is not to lose his nationality if, before acquiring a foreign nationality, he gets the written permission he has applied for, of the competent authorities of his home State to acquire such nationality. Before that the German consul is to be consulted. I read that as applying only to naturalisation after that law came into effect, because it makes pro- 397 vision for the circumstances under which he may retain his nationality although he has acquired a foreign nationality. It relates, I think, to the future. Accordingly I do not think there is any retrospective effect of the Delbrüek law as regards this clause.Passing to the question which my noble friend asks me as to the effect of the Amendment which the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill is moving, it is this. Your Lordships will see that one of the causes which give rise to the right of denaturalisation is if the person who had been naturalized—
(f) remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national statue.The proposal of the noble Viscount is made to simplify that clause very much. If you have got a man who remains, according to the law of a foreign State, in spite of his having acquired British nationality, still in the allegiance of that foreign State at war with His Majesty, you have a clear case, for thinking that, prima facie at all events, his naturalisation here may be recalled. You do not need further inquiry. You need not go into any elaborate investigation as to the details of the law. The mere fact that, according to the law of that foreign country, he remains subject to the allegiance of that foreign country which is at war with this country is enough to show that we are probably better without him. We do not want people who have taken the oath of allegiance here but are subject to the allegiance of a foreign State actually at war with His Majesty.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy noble friend proposes to leave out from the word "remains" to the end of line 29, so that the paragraph will run thus—
remains according to the law of a State at war with His Majesty a subject of that State.You want these words "according to the law of a State at war with his Majesty" for this reason. It might be argued that "remains the subject of a foreign State" meant according to the law of England. That is not what is meant at all. If, according to the law of his own country, his own country has still a hold upon his allegiance; we say, "You are not the man 398 for us; we want undivided allegiance." For that reason my noble friend proposes to put in the words "according to the law of a State at war with his Majesty." If you get that you will drop the two lines which follow, which I think a little perplex some people.As far as I am concerned, I want nothing more than the fact that the State which claims his allegiance is at war with his Majesty. Why do we want the lines that follow?—"that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status." Of course, it does not regard naturalisation as extinguishing his original status for the reason that it claims that he still remains a subject of that State, although he is naturalised in Great Britain. The words of the second and third lines are unnecessary, and really perplex the inquirer.
This Amendment has, of course, a bearing upon the Amendment which is down in the name of my noble and learned friend Lord Stuart of Wortley. He proposes to leave out the words "at war with his Majesty" so as to make the paragraph run thus—
remains the subject of a State that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status.The effect of this would be that, however friendly a State was, if, on investigating its law, you found it did not regard naturalisation in Great Britain as extinguishing the allegiance which the person naturalised here owed-to his native country, that is to be a ground for revocation.Take the nations of Europe. Russia has been mentioned by the noble Earl opposite. Russia retains, in its full integrity, that principle which used to characterise our law—that no one can strip himself of his native country. He cannot get rid of his allegiance, and the effect of this would be that no Russian could be naturalised here so long as the law of Russia remains in that respect as I understand it is and has been for long, because the law of Russia would say that Russia still has a hold upon him in respect of his allegiance. The law of Turkey is the same. Turkish law does not recognise the right of any man to strip himself of his allegiance to the Sultan. Take the application of that to the Armenians. Technically, the Armenians are subject to 399 Turkey. Never was there a Power that had deserved worse of a portion of its subjects than Turkey of the Armenians. I am sure my noble and learned friend would not desire that it should be the cause of revoking the certificates of an Armenian that the law of the country to which he was subject retained its hold upon him and held that he was still a Turkish subject.
Then, I am told, the law of the Argentine is very much the same. At all events, there is good ground for supposing it is so. With regard to France and Italy there is some doubt because, in terms, the Code seems to say that naturalisation in any country puts an end to allegiance to the Government of France or Italy; but then there is this, that the obligation to military services remains. Therefore, in the case of these two countries, you have got in one most important particular the fact that the country of origin still retains its hold in regard to military service upon the man naturalised here.
I am told that the laws of Holland and Sweden are the same. I do not profess to be an expert in those laws. The information I am giving is the result of inquiries that have been made by Home Office officials, and I submit to your Lordships that it would be a great pity to enter into a sort of crusade against the subjects of perfectly friendly States merely on the ground of what we may consider the imperfections in their law. We ought, so far as we reasonably can, to encourage naturalisation by friendly aliens of a good type, but it is another thing altogether when you come to the case of a man who, after being naturalised here, still is a subject of a State at war with His Majesty. I say that that is a reason for getting rid of that man. You never know which of the two States will secure his allegiance.
LORD SHEFFIELDThe noble and learned Lord has not quite answered my question. I gather from him now that he contends that any person who has been naturalised here, no matter how long ago, if he came from a country which does not waive its claim upon his allegiance, although he has himself repudiated it, is to be denaturalised here.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWhat I said in that respect was criticising the effect of the Amendment which stands in the name of Lord Stuart of Wortley. I was 400 not putting that forward as my contention. I said that would he the effect if the Amendment was adopted.
LORD SHEFFIELDBut we have words which say: "remains subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status." I rather understood the noble and learned Lord to say that in that case any person, no matter how completely he had identified himself with this country, and that merely against his will and his wishes there was this outstanding claim on his allegiance by his former country, would be deprived of his British citizenship, which he might have enjoyed for thirty years.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThat is quite justifiable because you have here a man who is, and still is, a subject of a State at war with His Majesty.
LORD SHEFFIELDBut take the case of a man who has expressed a desire to become a British subject. Take the case of the Poles, whom we have rather neglected while the Russians were our friends, and turned the cold shoulder on their claims. It has been the hereditary tradition that a Pole was a person to whom we extended our arms. Of course Russia is neither at war with us or against us now, but we do not know how soon the Bolshevists might be at war with us. He would be a very bold man who would say whether they will be friends, foes or allies. Take the case of Kossuth. If be had become naturalised you would, now that Austria is at war with us (and because Austria might claim a lien upon him which he had repudiated) compulsorily deprive him of his British citizenship. I can quite understand the Government saying that in cases where there may be really divided allegiance we should inquire into it. Take the case of Mr. Panizzi, who came from Italy to this country as a young man; who made his mark and ultimately became Head Librarian of the British Museum. No man could more thoroughly have identified himself with this country than Mr. Panizzi, but if Italy had been at war with us we should have turned him out because, although he had been an Englishmen for forty years, there was still the outstanding claim of his own country. I say this is unreasonable legislation, and if you would 401 give the Home Office power to look in particular cases it would be reasonable.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe Home Secretary can look into the whole case. Although the House thought it right "shall" should be substituted for "may," you still have this security, that he has to do it if he is satisfied not only of the facts, but also that it is conducive to the public good the name should be removed. If you take the case of an Armenian, of course the Home Secretary would say that it is not conducive to the public good, merely because Turkey says she has a hold on the man that his name should be removed.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEY moved an Amendment to the Amendment, to leave out the words "at war with His Majesty." The noble Lord said: I think it rather hard that your Lordships should have heard the case for the defendant before I have been able to state the case for the prosecution. Your Lordships must remember that when I put this Amendment down the House had not adopted the word "shall" instead of "may" in the earlier part of the clause, but it still remains the fact that even after the Home Secretary, in the discharge of the new and inflexible obligation that has been laid upon him, initiates these proceedings, it is still open to him to say in any particular case that he is not satisfied the continuance of the laws of naturalisation to any particular individual are not conducive to the public good. Therefore, as I read it, in the cases to which my Amendment would apply the whole proceedings will remain optional. With that consideration I suggest falls to the ground the main part of the objection of the Lord Chancellor to my Amendment upon the case of neutrals.
§ I freely confess that I put this Amendment down with the intention that it should apply, in proper cases, to individual neutrals. I ventured to say on the Second Reading that this was an uncivilised form of law which enabled one State to adopt the practice of planting its citizens abroad in foreign States, to enjoy all the benefits of citizenship, and at the same time be able to serve, by means, worthy or unworthy, the State from which they were pretending to have divested their citizenship. I also said that to that uncivilised law Germany had for may long years past been making a most unneigh- 402 bourly use, if indeed one might not use a much less charitable expression. You cannot say that in no future case, and in the case of no State, will that practice ever be resorted to again. I quite agree that with our friends in Holland and Russia it is unlikely, but the essence of the thing is that the practice, if resorted to at all, is resorted to before war begins, and when the State in question is at peace with us. The essence of the practice, and almost the first condition of its success, is this planting of people abroad, the laying of the foundation for espionage, the capture of commercial and other positions, in the interests of the success of the war which is intended to follow.
§ I submit to your Lordships that in such a case it ought to be open to the Home Secretary to be able to say that the continuance of British citizenship is not conducive to the public good. It may be this is what you call a crusading Amendment and aims at creating pressure which will induce those States to amend their laws so as to come into conformity with ours. We took the lead in this matter in 1870 when we made it quite clear that we were not going to stand in the way of our citizens accepting citizenship in any foreign State abroad, and it is on our Statute Book that any man who does accept such foreign citizenship should lose entirely, and for all purposes, the British citizenship be had thus abandoned.
§
Amendment moved to the Amendment—
Leave out ("at war with His Majesty").—(Lord Stuart of Wortley.)
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI find myself in sympathy to a considerable extent with what my noble and learned friend Lord Stuart of Wortley has said, and partly for a reason which I am afraid will not commend itself to some of my noble friends opposite. I have always taken the view that in this matter we ought to proceed by looking into the cases individually, and not by treating people in classes. The tendency has been, at any rate in some quarters, to treat people as beyond the pale if they belong to a certain race or class, without any reference to their individual qualities or even to their services to this country. I have never been able to take that view, and I have always felt that there is some danger that the public mind may have been led to excess to concentrate on the national risk proceeding from people 403 of German descent and German blood, to the exclusion of the risks, in some ways not less serious, which may proceed from people belonging to nominally friendly races.
I quite agree with my noble and learned friend that there must be a great number of cases in which the position of neutral aliens, and even in some cases friendly aliens—I do not hesitate to say so—ought to receive a closer examination than possibly they have received up to the present. I feel very little confidence in any class of persons—I will even say my own countrymen—if there is a prima facie case of unfriendliness to the interests of this country. I would say if there were such a case, even in your Lordships' House or in the other House, or in His Majesty's Government, or any other body of persons, that it ought to be inquired into, and, if necessary, dealt with. It is always possible that some individual may be a traitor.
But the real difficulties which I see in the acceptance of my noble friend's Amendment is the enormous number of cases which would fall to the Home Secretary to be examined if this were passed. The effect would be that every Russian naturalised in this country would be denaturalised except for some reason shown to the contrary. The presumption would be, being a citizen of a country whose allegiance he has not parted from by becoming naturalised here, that unless it is shown that his retention as a citizen here was in the public interest, he would have to go. That surely would throw a tremendous burden on the Home Office, and would involve, I should have thought, an inquiry into a great number of cases—harmless cases. I should like to strengthen the hands of the Home Secretary in every possible way, but I confess, subject to anything that may be said, that I very much doubt whether my noble friend's Amendment is quite the way to do it.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI only desire to say one word in reference to what my noble and learned friend has said. I entirely agree with what the noble Marquess opposite has pointed out. The question really is in these cases what, taking a large view of the subject, is for the interests of this country. We must order our own affairs properly; at the 404 same time it is fair to remark that it is not the fault of the particular subject if the law of his country is such that it still has a hold upon his allegiance. He has not done anything wrong in the matter. It may be his misfortune, but it is not his fault. The question is, what is the right thing to do under such circumstances? If his country is at war with this country the matter is clear beyond the possibility of doubt. It is a very strong reason why he should not remain a naturalised subject of this country if he still holds allegiance to a hostile sovereign.
But when you come to the subjects of friendly countries—countries that are well disposed towards us, and whose subjects come here with every desire to promote the prosperity of this country and to lead peaceable and orderly lives under the Government of the King—it is another matter altogether. Do you not then stir up a multitude of controversies calculated to cause friction? And with what beneficial result? There is no reason for thinking that these people will do harm here. If they were the subjects of a country at war with His Majesty, of course it would be otherwise, but they are the subjects of a friendly State. What advantage can we gain by undertaking this tremendous and laborious task, a task the performance of which is certain to cause a great deal of friction with countries that are perfectly friendly. Looking at the matter as a whole, I submit to your Lordships that the right course is that embodied in the Amendment which my noble friend in charge of the Bill has laid before us.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is difficult to press the Government upon this matter beyond where they wish to go, but I confess that my sympathies are with my noble friend, Lord Stuart, in his wish to get rid of this double nationality. It seems to me, in spite of the arguments which were addressed to us with immense force by the Lord Chancellor just now, impossible to reconcile to our approval a state of things under which a particular individual owes allegiance to two different States at the same time. It is true that at the present moment we are at war only with the Central Powers and their Allies, but we cannot say that the Powers which are now neutral may not at some future time become hostile, and one would think that when we are dealing with a naturalisation law we might take a broad view of thing; 405 and try and settle This particular controversy. The Lord Chancellor has himself shown that this clause is not mandatory because of the words which come at the beginning of the next succeeding paragraph. The Home Secretary has not only to be satisfied that this double nationality exists, but he has also to be satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. Therefore it is not mandatory.
I complain that in the drafting of this Bill the Government have mixed up possibilities which should involve mandatory action with possibilities which should involve discretionary action. For example paragraphs (a) and (b) of this subsection ought really to be transferred to Section I which is a mandatory section; that is to say there ought to be no doubt whatever that if a man is by act or by speech disaffected to His Majesty he ought to lose his British nationality. And the same thing with paragraph (b). Perhaps at a future stage that might be done, and (a) and (b) might be transferred to Section 1 which is mandatory. Then we should have in Section 2 nothing but discretionary matters, including imprisonment, bad character, and, amongst others, the question of double nationality. If it was made quite clear that this was a discretionary section it would be an improvement, and I should think that the Government might go so far as to say that in all cases of double nationality a man should be liable to lose his British nationality. But it is not urgent to deal with countries that are not at war with His Majesty. The rest of the Bill is urgent. Therefore, speaking for myself, I should not press the Government to go beyond where they wish to go, but as it is a discretionary section they might go as far as my noble friend asks them.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am obliged to the noble Marquess for the way in which he has put it. I was only going to point out that the clause as it stands will apply to any power now friendly that afterwards goes to war with this country.
§ LORD PARMOORI should agree with a great deal of what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stuart of Wortley, if we had been dealing with questions of naturalisation, but we are not dealing with them in this clause. What we are dealing with is revocation of naturalisation. Think what it is that he proposes. I 406 quite agree with what was said by the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, in regard to Italy and France. The effect of the noble Lord's Amendment would be to denaturalise under the words "conducive to the public good," but apart from that this would be compulsorily to denaturalise every Italian or Frenchman now naturalised in this country. It is the same as regards Americans if the American law, about which there is great complication, does not extinguish the original national status. That is surely a very extreme form of compulsion against our Allies or neutrals at the present moment. As the noble Marquess has pointed out, it is certainly not a matter of immediate necessity. If the condition of naturalisation arises I should agree with a great deal of what he said about the double nationality, but I think that revocation is a very different thing. I certainly hope that the Government will not assent to the Amendment.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYOf course, I do not want to worry a distressed Pole nor to embarrass an Armenian refugee. I never intended anything of the kind, nor would my Amendment have had that effect when I put it down. I quite recognise what the Lord Chancellor has pointed out that the substitution of the word "shall" makes it necessary on the Home Secretary to rake up every individual case, though that may mean thousands of people in the East End of London. But I was obliged to operate in the way that I did in putting down this Amendment, and after the discussion perhaps your Lordships will allow me to withdraw it.
§ Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS moved, in subsection (3), to leave out "and that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is not," and to insert "and unless he is satisfied that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is."
§ The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, I venture to submit, is a very important one. At the present moment in this clause you have decided that the Home Secretary shall denaturalise certain classes of people—disloyal people, people who have traded with the enemy, men of bad character, and also people who have 407 got double nationality. In a state of war with His Majesty the case of people of double nationality is open to inquiry. In every case there is to be an inquiry. I fully agree with the inquiry. I do not want to denaturalise everybody, and I have never said I did. I was misunderstood the other day in this. From the beginning of the war I have always thought that, when a man has been naturalised here and has shown his loyalty by having sons who volunteered at the beginning of the war and perhaps died for the country, that man ought to be recognised as a good citizen. But I do think this country ought to have the benefit of the doubt.
§ How does the clause stand? In all these cases we have been debating there is to be an inquiry, and then the Home Secretary shall denaturalise the man if he is satisfied that the continuance of his certificate is not conducive to the public good. That is putting on the Home Office a tremendous burden of inquiry as to facts which in many cases nobody will have except the man himself. I put this case to you. The noble Lord opposite talked about Armenians. It is said it would be a hard thing to denaturalise Armenians under this Bill. I quite agree with that view, but what will happen is this. It will be proved that a certain man is a subject—there must be tens of thousands of them—of a State which does not recognise naturalisation, and therefore the man is a subject of two States. In those cases where would the onus of proof lie? I say the onus of proof ought to lie on the man, who should come and say, "I have good grounds by which I can show that I am a loyal citizen." If a man is an Armenian and not a Turk he can come and prove that he is an Armenian, for he will have the facts. The Home Office in most cases will not have the facts. They can tell whether a man originally came from Turkey, but it is he who ought to prove whether he is an Armenian or a Turk.
§ Take the case of an Alsatian. None of us under this clause would wish to denaturalise an Alsatian, but we ought not to allow a lot of Germans to remain citizens because they say they are Alsatians. We ought to put the boot on the other leg. According to my Amendment the clause would read "unless he is satisfied that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good." I think it is a very important Amendment. It 408 gives the country the benefit of the doubt. It lets any person who has been of service to this country, like a naturalised person who has had sons fighting for us, conic forward and prove his case, and he can get the benefit of the exception, but wherever there is any doubt the country gets the benefit of it. I hope therefore that the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 29, after ("and") insert ("unless he is satisfied") and leave out ("not").—(Viscount St. Davids.)
§ LORD PHILLIMOREAn unfortunate German governess, well known and trusted in a family, or possibly some woman pensioned after long service, is brought up before the Home Secretary. Under these conditions how is the Home Secretary to say it is conductive to the public good that she should retain her certificate, except that it is honour and fair play and absence of cruelty. If it is left as it is now he will say that it is not conducive to the public good that the certificate shall be taken away, but it is proposing an absurd difficulty to him if he has to say that it is conducive to the public good that the certificate should be continued. I am sure the noble Viscount cannot have thought what the effect of his proposal would be.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORYour Lordships will observe what the effect of the Amendment is. As it stands at present, one condition of revoking the certificate is that the Secretary of State should be satisfied that in any case the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. Then it may be revoked if he is satisfied of that in addition to the other points. The words proposed by the noble Viscount (Lord St. Davids) are these: "Unless lie is satisfied that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good." That exactly reverses the burden of proof. Surely where the proposal is to take away what has been granted to a man, the condition ought to be established before it is taken away. This Amendment requires that it shall be taken away unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good. I submit that that is not right and not in accordance with our ordinary way of looking at such subjects. And the gravity of the Amend- 409 ment is very much increased by the substitution in the earlier part of the section of the word "shall" for the word "may."
If your Lordships will look you will notice that as the clause now stands, "the Secreatry of State shall" if any one of the heads (a) to (f) be established, and that in any case the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. Before that the noble Lord proposes to say unless the Secretary of State is satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is conducive to the public good—that is to say, you throw upon the person who had this grant the power of showing that the certificate is conducive to the public good. I submit that when you couple this Amendment with the introduction of the mandatory word "shall" at the beginning of the clause, it is not in accordance with English practice to adopt it.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTThe next three Amendments, which stand in my name upon the paper, are purely drafting. The object of the first Amendment is merely to split up this long clause into two sub-clauses.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("but the") and insert ("(3) The")
Page 2, line 31, leave out ("such order") and insert ("an order under this section")
Page 2, line 33, leave out ("this subsection") arid insert subsection (2) of this section".—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to omit the words "the Secretary of State may order the certificate to" and to insert "the certificate shall." The noble Viscount said: I want to add in front of the word "the" in the words I propose to insert, the word "thereupon." May I ask the attention of my noble and gallant friend Lord Beresford to this Amendment, because, by adding these words, the Amendment standing in the name of the noble and gallant Admiral, which is the next on the Paper, will be met. It seems simpler to provide generally that the certificate shall in all cases be surrendered than to throw the obligation on the Secretary of State to make the order.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, lines 32 and 33, leave out ("the Secretary of State may order the certificate to")
410
and insert ("thereupon the certificate shall").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ LORD BERESFORDMay I ask my noble friend whether that will really meet my Amendment?
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI think I may say that it meets my noble and gallant friend entirely.
§ LORD BERESFORDIt throws the obligation on the individual and not on the Court?
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTYes, that is so.
§ LORD BERESFORDThat is what I wanted.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTThe next Amendment is purely drafting.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("is a natural-born") and insert ("was at birth a").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ After Clause 1:
§ LORD TENTERDEN proposed to insert as a new clause, "A person of enemy nationality shall not start a new business or factory or obtain control of such a business or factory or of any raw materials, without obtaining a licence from the Board of Trade, and the Board may, if they think fit, at any time, revoke any such licence." The noble Lord said: I desire to insert this new clause particularly in view of the clever speech made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack on the occasion of the Second Reading. The Lord Chancellor than not only dealt with the Bill as it stands at present and with reference to present conditions, but he looked—as one might have expected him to look—far ahead into the future when conditions will be different from what they were when the war commenced. The noble and learned Lord referred to what I consider a most essential point—namely, the enemy propaganda during peace time, when they obtained possession of businesses in this country, such as insurance businesses, banking institutions, and so forth, which 411 were well known by all who know anything about conditions in the City to be centres of—
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTIf the noble Lord will allow me, may I point out to him that he will find that his Amendment will more properly come in on the Trading with the Enemy (Amendment) Bill?
LORD TENTERDENI have that Bill here, and I can assure your Lordships that, if what the noble Viscount says is accurate, I will at once withdraw my Amendment; but I shall put down an Amendment to this other Bill when it is before your Lordships' House.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 2:
§ Minor amendments of the principal Act.
§ 2. The following amendments shall be made in the principal Act:—
§
(1) In paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section one (which defines natural-born British subjects) after the words "had been granted" there shall be inserted the words "or had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory, or was at the time of that person's birth in the service of the Crown"; and at the end of that section the following subsection shall be inserted:—
(4) The certificate of a Secretary of State that a person was at any date in the service of the Crown shall, for the purposes of this section, be conclusive.
§
(2) At the end of section two (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation) the following subsection shall be inserted:—
(6) For the purposes of this section a period spent in the service of the Crown may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be treated as equivalent to a period of residence in the United Kingdom.
§ (3) In subsection (1) of section eight (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation in British possessions) after the words "United Kingdom" there shall be inserted the words "and of a High Court or superior court of the possession for the High Court, and with the omission of any reference to the approval of the "Lord Chancellor," and after the words "any certificate proposed to be granted" there shall be inserted the words "and any proposal to revoke any certificate."
§ (4) In section ton (which relates to the national status of married women) at the end of the section there shall be added the words "and provided that where an alien is a subject of an enemy state it shall be lawful for his wife if she was at birth a British subject to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the Secretary of State, if he is 412 satisfied that it is advisable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalisation.
§
(5) In subsection (1) of section twenty-seven (which contains definitions) at the end of the definition of "British subject" after the words "has been granted" there shall be inserted the words "or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory," and for subsection (2) of that section the following subsection shall be substituted:—
(2) Where in pursuance of this Act the name of a child is included in a certificate of naturalisation granted to his parent, or where, in pursuance of any Act repealed by this Act, any child has been deemed to be a naturalised British subject by reason of residence with his parent, such child shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURST moved to insert a new subsection. The noble Viscount said: These are drafting Amendmentsin the Act of 1914. The first Amendment is necessary because section 5 (2) might be interpreted to naturalise a minor only when he does not comply with the conditions. The Amendment gives effect to the intentions of the subsection. The second Amendment is consequential on an Amendment inserted in the Bill in the House of Commons—namely, lines 16 to 25 on page 5, which gives further power to a naturalised person under disability. For instance, to a married woman under certain circumstances which I explained on the Second Reading.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, after line 7, insert as a new subsection: (3) In subsection (2) of section five "whether or not" shall be substituted for "although" and "not" shall be omitted, and in subsection (3) of section five "Act" shall be substituted for "section."—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF JERSEY moved to insert a new subsection enacting that in section three, at the end of subsection (1) of the Act of 1914, there should be added the words: "Provided that no person who at, or at any time before, the grant of a certificate of naturalisation was the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency for a period of ten years after the grant of a certificate of naturalisation."
§ The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendments standing in my name, I 413 may, perhaps, be permitted to remind your Lordships that I moved a similar Amendment to the Franchise Bill when that measure was before your Lordships' House. On that occasion it was suggested by His Majesty's Government that it would be more suitable to move this Amendment when the Naturalisation Bill was before the House; therefore I have taken the first opportunity of carrying out that suggestion. I hope that the professions of sympathy with the objects of the Amendment which were then made on behalf of His Majesty's Government by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, may be proved to be real by their acceptance of this Amendment.
§ Only two substantial objections were then put forward to the Amendment. The first was that it was undesirable to deal with the class of persons described as "hybrid"—that is the expression used by the noble Lord in charge of the Bill; and he defined a "hybrid" as a person who was and yet was not a British subject. Considerable emphasis was laid on the absurdity of creating such an individual, but I would suggest that His Majesty's Government appear to have changed their minds on the subject in a remarkably short space of time, because within less than a week a measure was introduced by the Government, the Non-ferrous Metal Industry Bill, where it was rightly laid down that a person of enemy alien birth was to be treated differently from a person of true British origin. Therefore, since it is now necessary for a person of alien enemy origin to obtain a special licence before engaging in certain industries the "hybrid" who was so much ridiculed on the former occasion has been officially created. If it is right that for ordinary purposes of every day trading a distinction should be drawn, it is not unreasonable to suggest that a special period of probation should he provided for before these persons are fit to legislate for the people of this country.
§ The only other objection put forward was that the Amendment as then suggested would affect others than those who are now alien enemies. This Amendment which I now venture to submit, your Lordships will observe, deals only with persons of alien enemy origin, and therefore it is quite unnecessary for me to refer to the possible objection to a more drastic Amendment. I venture to claim that in 414 moving this Amendment I am in effect not only acting on the suggestions made by His Majesty's Government on a former occasion, but I am also endeavouring to give effect to the policy of distinction which they themselves have initated.
§ As to the general question I need say only a few words. It seems to me an insult to the people of this country that any persons of alien enemy origin should be permitted to take any part in malting laws for the people of this country. These persons are not here for the welfare of this country; they are here entirely for their own convenience. You may naturalise them and very easily call them British citizens, but you cannot imbue them either with British sympathies or with British instincts. They are allowed to live here by our courtesy and by our hospitality, and I would say very often by our folly, but they have not and they cannot possibly have any right to take part in legislating for the destinies of this country. I do not propose to say anything more except this. Personally I should have liked to move a very much more drastic Amendment and should have liked to exclude them altogether from making our laws, but it is in the hope that I may be able to persuade His Majesty's Government and your Lordships at any rate to establish the principle that a person of alien enemy origin is not to be treated as on the same plane as a person of true British birth, that I venture to move the Amendment in my name.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, after line 7, insert as a new subsection:
(3)In section three at the end of subsection (1) there shall be added the words:
Provided that no person who at, or at any time before, the grant of a certificate of naturalisation was the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be entitled to be registered as a parliamentary elector for any constituency for a period of ten years after the grant of a certificate of naturalisation."—(The Earl of Jersey.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am sensible of the considerations which have been so clearly and temperately stated by the noble Earl who has moved this Amendment. At the same time I hope that your Lordships will not accept it. In the first place, if it were accepted it should not come into this part of the Bill. This is an Amendment of the Act of 1914, and it should go into the portion of the Bill 415 which deals with substantive amendments and alterations of that law. But that is a matter which might be cured by altering the position of the clause. So I pass at once to the considerations which I submit render it undesirable that this Amendment should be accepted. Of course, I take it that the noble Earl means it to apply only to constituencies in the United Kingdom. As it stands, it might be read as applying to the whole Empire. I am not certain that that is not what is intended. We could not in accordance with usage legislate for the Dominions, and I take it that the noble Earl would desire to confine it to the United Kingdom. But then you are landed in a difficulty.
This subject has formed the matter I am told of conferences of the Dominions, and in two of them a strong opinion, I am informed, was expressed against any distinctive rights of a naturalised subject in this manner. After all, the right of voting is substantially what a man gets by being naturalised. We have been so prodigal of privileges to aliens that naturalisation gives him very little except the right of voting and the power of occupying certain offices if he is a man of such distinction as to be able to aspire to them. Under those circumstances is it desirable that we should have in the United Kingdom legislation on this point which is at variance with the legislation that some of our Dominions, at all events, desire? I do not for a moment take up the position that we are bound in all matters to follow the Dominions. We ought in a good many things to know our own business. But I think every one recognises that the Act of 1914 contained an attempt, and a most laudable attempt, as far as possible to establish one Code for the whole Empire, and it would be a great pity, unless there were very substantial reasons for it, to introduce into this Bill a matter on which we should find a discrepancy between this country and certain of our great Dominions. I submit these matters for the consideration of the noble Earl. Of course, if it applied to the whole Empire the observation I am making would not arise.
But I think every one recognises insuperable difficulties in passing this for the whole Empire—no one would think of it. Is it desirable to break in on the prin- 416 ciple which as far as possible we have followed that the law as to nationality and naturalisation should be the same? Is there sufficient reason for it? It would deprive a certain number of people of the right they have had. Of course, one sees that they are not exactly the electors one particularly desires; I feel the force of that; no one feels it more strongly than I do myself, but, after all, we must look at this from the practical point of view. There are so many more drops in the ocean. It would be a very insignificant part of the electorate that would be swayed by the foreign vote. In some constituencies it might come to something, but taking the country all over—I should not like to attempt to give a fraction, but it must be something very minute. All I suggest to the House is that it is not worth it—non tantum. There is not sufficient compensating advantage to lead us, with the disadvantages to which I have ventured to allude, to give way to a very natural feeling of irritation and vexation that there are persons enjoying the hospitality of this country who in many cases may cherish sentiments much more friendly to their original home than to the country where they have found a second home. Natural man is very much tempted, I think, to attempt legislation of this kind; but, looking at the thing from the practical point of view and from the view which prevails in certain of our Dominions, I suggest that there is no sufficient advantage to be gained by disfranchising these people. And there is something a little illogical in granting a man naturalisation and yet depriving him of the chief feature in naturalisation, because if he is not fit to vote he ought not to be naturalised at all.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURYI listened with some degree of pain to the noble and learned Lord's observations, because I always thought it was a very great mistake that the objection which was once raised by the law as it then stood, and which was I think very useful and proper in its place, should have been removed. For some reason we appeared to go to sleep and to think there would be no war in the future, and in a sort of spirit of amiability that prevailed at one particular time the alteration of the law was made. I think it was a very great mistake, and the only difficulty I have here is that there was one observation of 417 the Lord Chancellor which I think deserves consideration—namely, the question of introducing this matter into the particular Bill that we are now upon. Otherwise I certainly should, if the Question arose, and I shall now if my noble friend persists in his Amendment, vote with him, for I think it was a great mistake that any naturalised persons should take part in our legislation at all. Therefore if this Amendment is persisted in I shall support it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREWith regard to what the noble and learned Lord said about the opinion of the Dominions, all the colonial experience that I have leads me entirely to believe that while the great. Dominions would stand no interference with them they do not wish, and as far as I know have never wished, to have any Dominion interference as to who should or who should not be on the voters' roll in this country.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSThe noble and learned Lord speaking for the Government objected to this Amendment because the lack of consistency—that was almost his sole argument—the lack of consistency between the franchise here and the franchise in two of our Colonies. The franchises never have been the same in the Colonies and here. Some of them have at the present moment given votes to women. We do no give them to women although we are going to give them at the next Election. There are some Colonies which do not give votes to women. At the next Election our franchise will he different from that of those colonies. What practical difference can it make, if you say that certain naturalised aliens shill not vote for ten years in this country, if they have the right to vote in two of our colonies. They cannot vote here and also in the Colonies. There is a residential qualification after all, and what the noble anti learned Lord has said is no serious objection to the very substantial argument which the noble Earl opposite has used. After all we are the Mother country. I would support the noble Earl if he said twenty years instead of ten. I do not: think that a man after ten years is going to know much about what is to the advantage of this country and what is to its disadvantage, and I call it a very moderate Amendment indeed a nil I hope that it will be adopted.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI hope the Government will see that this Amendment is really necessary. I ask them just to think for themselves what the condition of public opinion will be if at the first General Election after the Peace the electors of this country see a man of German origin come in and claim to vote for a member for the House of Commons of this country—for the Assembly which is going to appoint the Government of the country—just after the country with which that man of German origin has the deepest symathy has done its best to cut the throat of this country. Public opinion will be horrified, and we are bound to consider the feeling of the country. It is quite clear that it is a matter which the people would naturally resent. They would say "This German Nation has done its best to destroy us and is responsible for unnamed atrocities. Are we positively to allow people born and bred and reared in Germany, merely because of this artificial matter of naturalisation, to come in and vote for our Supreme Government?" I think there is a probability that the man would be mobbed and torn to pieces at the poll, and I am sure that the Government should make some concession here.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI do not think the scope of this Amendment is quite so wide as the noble Marquess appears to suppose, because any German naturalised before 1908 would be able to walk into a polling-booth at the next election.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYIt is more moderate than I said, perhaps.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI question myself whether a rule of this kind is really worth making. There has been far too much naturalisation in the past—of that I am quite convinced. Naturalisation has been far too easy, and it has been taken advantage of by people who have no real claim to become British citizens; but I confess that if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall support the Government in this matter, because I do not think this particular thing is worth doing.
§ LORD WITTENHAMBefore we go to a. division, I should like to say that I think the case is stronger than Lord Salisbury put it. There may be an election this autumn. From what we hear it is very likely. Are yon really going to have 419 Germans, Austrians, Bulgarians, and possibly Turks, naturalised here, walking into the polling-booths and voting one way or the other on the domestic and imperial legislation of this country? The noble Marquess said there might be riots and trouble. I venture to say that if the election takes place while we are at war there must be rioting and trouble. The argument of the Lord Chancellor, after all, that this Amendment deals only with a drop in the ocean, leaves me cold, because we are concerned with a question of principle. It does not matter whether it is only a little one, or something large and material—whether the numbers affected are small or large. The question is whether it is right or wrong. Whether it is seemly or unseemly that men of these four enemy nations should be allowed to walk into the polling-booth, and help to control the policy of this country.
EARL RUSSELLI rather doubt whether the noble Lord who has just spoken has read the Amendment. He said it would be a shocking thing to see Germans, Austrians, Turks, and Bulgarians walking into the polling-booths at the next election, but if this Amendment is carried that will not be prevented. Any such persons naturalised before 1908, as has already been pointed out, will be able to do so. The noble Lord then went on to say it was a matter of principle. Well, I don't know what the principle is. If the principle is that an alien enemy is never to vote at all, you would have to make the Amendment rather wider, and disfranchise him for life. The noble Marquess on the Front Bench said he was not at all sure there would not be riots, and that the public would be unable to understand anything of this sort happening. It is difficult to say what the public will do when inflamed by hot-heads or scalp-hunters.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am not a hothead.
EARL RUSSELLI was referring rather to the Press which has incited people in this respect. It seems to me it is rather a contemptuous thing to let these enemy aliens vote. It is rather a way of saying, "Upon my soul, it doesn't matter to us whether a few thousands of you vote or 420 not. We are able to afford it, and we are able to stand it." That, I think, was to some extent the argument of the "drop in the ocean" which the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, used.
What do you wish to do with a person when you have naturalised him? This only applies to people who have been naturalised. Do you wish to make a person who is naturalised a good and devoted citizen of your country, interested in the fate of your country, and binding up his fortunes with your country, or not? If so, I should have thought that one of the best methods was to give him a vote which would give him some reason to be interested in the country's politics and some reason to consider how he will exercise the vote. You are putting a man in the position which does not make him, I should think, particularly anxious to feel his solidarity with the country of his naturalisation, if, for ten years, he is oppressed with the stigma of not being able to take any part in the fate of the country of which he is a subject, and to whose taxes and laws he is subjected. I hope the Government will stand firm and not accept the Amendment, which, I cannot but think, is without merit.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI hope the House will support the Government in this matter. I do not agree with my noble friend the noble Marquess who was formerly Governor of New South Wales. I believe there is very considerable feeling on this point on behalf of those who represent the Dominions, and it is everything in this matter to carry the Dominions with us. As has been pointed out already by the noble Earl opposite, this refers to the future and those who have already been naturalised for ten years will vote, whether or no. If naturalisation is to go on at all, the one thing that I believe causes people to wish to be naturalised is that they can exercise the franchise and the responsibilities which pertain to that privilege. I sincerely trust the House will help us to get the Amendment.
§ LORD BERESFORDI should like to ask the noble Lord one question. What becomes of those naturalised aliens who are at present interned and those whom 421 we are certain to intern under this Bill? When peace is declared I suppose they will be let loose and they will be qualified to vote. The people will be very angry over that. My noble friend on the left says they do not care a damn. I do not agree with him. I do not know if he goes about among them as much as I do. I can assure him that the working guilds I am with are very angry over the question. They are more angry because they do not understand it. There has been so much secrecy, and secrecy breeds suspicion, and suspicion breeds exaggeration. I should like to stop exaggeration. I want these things brought out in public. We have a large number of naturalised aliens who have broken their contract with us and have been interned. We have not broken our contract with them. They worked their way into every industrial and commercial pursuit, and most of the financial pursuits as well.
§ VISCOUNT MILNERYou are taking power to denaturalise them.
§ LORD BERESFORDThis is à propos of the Amendment before the House. I want to know if the people who are interned, and those who are going to be interned, will, at the end of the war, have power to vote.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTIt is possible that a number of these people who are interned may be denaturalised, and then they would not he in a position to have the vote.
§ LORD BERESFORDA great number may not be denaturalised.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTAnd no enemies would be naturalised for five years afterwards.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSWhat may happen is that some of the people who are interned may not be denaturalised. The clauses are not very mandatory, and presently you may have a fine procession of naturalised aliens asking for a day off and walking out of the internment camps to vote on the question of peace or war.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWETrue, but I am afraid the Amendment will not necessarily save him from that, because some of them might have been naturalised before 1908.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSWe have never started the theory that the Amendment should not be stronger. That is an argument in favour of the view that the Amendment is not strong enough. If you adopt the Amendment I should be prepared to move later that we put in "twenty years" instead of "ten years." Do not complain that this is not strong enough, because we can easily alter that.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREMay I ask the noble Lord one question? Can he assure the House that he has been informed on good authority that the Dominions have expressed any wish to interfere with our domestic legislation?
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI did not say anything of the sort. As a matter of fact, I was really reiterating what had been much better said by the noble and learned Lord behind me.
§ On Question, whether the proposed subsection shall stand part of the clause?—
§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 28; Not-Contents, 47.
423§ LORD WITTENHAMIn moving the insertion of the new subsection standing in my name on the Paper, I feel that I am approaching a very substantial and material subject. I am sure you will believe that, in putting down the new subsection, I have done it from no personal consideration whatever, but merely because, rightly or wrongly, I conceive it to be my duty to do so. I am in this difficulty, that the matter is to a certain and material extent a question of law, and as I am in the presence of many great legal luminaries I am at a sad disadvantage. Although my duty lay in the land of the law many long years ago, I fear now that what I did know has become rusty, and I may not be able to state the case as a lawyer would. But, I think I can state it as a layman in a way which your Lordships will be able fully to understand.
What I desire to do in the Amendment is to upset the decision in the case of King v. Speyer in 1916. In that case the naturalisation laws, up to that date, were brought under review as affecting the Privy Council and Privy Councillors. The Act of Settlement was gone into, the Statute of 1844, the Naturalisation Act of 1870, and also the Act of 1914. In order that we may understand the point may I read a clause out of the Act of Settlement. Section 3 of that Act says:—
No person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the Dominions thereto belonging, although he be naturalised or made a denizon, except such as are born of British parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council.That lasted until 1844, and longer, because the Act of 1844, although it trod upon the 424 toes of the Act of Settlement, did not repeal this section. When we come to the Naturalisation Act of 1870 a section of that. Act did repeal the section I have just read of the Act of Settlement. It is curious that. 1870 was the year of the great struggle between France and Germany, and the flood of pro-Germanism which was setting in this country made itself felt, I expect, in that Statute, because we said in effect, "Let' em all come." Up to that time, for a century and inure, we had been content to repose upon the rock of Section 3 of the Act of Settlement. In the Act of 1870 we came to a different conclusion, and the floodtide continued right through the years until now.The case of the King v. Speyer decided that, although the Naturalisation Act of 1870 was revoked by the Statute of 1914, it did not revive the Act of Settlement, and thus Sir Edgar Speyer, who was a member of the Privy Council in spite of the Act of 1914, remained. By this new subsection I ask your Lordships to override the decision in King v. Speyer, but not to set up entirely again Section 3 of the Act of Settlement of 1700, which is very wide and applies to all naturalised subjects. If your Lordships will look at my Amendment, you will see that I only say that—
no naturalised alien who has been at any time the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be capable to be or remain a member of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament…Put into concrete shape, it means that no German or Hungarian or Austrian or Bulgarian or any naturalised enemy alien shall be capable to be or to remain a member of His Majesty's Privy Council or of either House of Parliament.425 This has been a difficult Amendment for me to move, because personal considerations come so largely into human affairs. I have been told that by moving this Amendment I am giving pain ill quarters where I should be exceedingly sorry to do anything of the kind. It is not because this Amendment affects certain individuals that I move it. It is because I venture to say broadly that no naturalised enemy alien ought to be a member of the Privy Council or of either House of Parliament. I was moved by what the noble Marquess Lord Crewe said, mid I think that he must have been pointing at this Amendment when he said "it is hard when you are dealing with classes to exclude individuals." That is why it is so painful to me. Individuals do come into our minds, but we have to say that in spite of those individuals, and however much we may hurt them, we have to think of principle. In this Amendment I am aiming at a class, and I am doing it on principle. Exceptions, my Lords, make bad laws. I do not think that because we favour a man here de a man there that we ought to allow that in any way to affect our judgment. The question is, Is it right or is it wrong?
I do not want to give pain. Is not the world full of pain? Look into the eyes of the women, the mothers of the sons of the Empire who are fighting and dying. Are not their eyes full of pain? Of course they are. Aye, but their eyes are full of something else. Their eyes are full of determination, and a sense of duty. Although tears may be in their eyes, they are determined to go through to the end whatever they may suffer. Are we going to be meeker, milder, gentler, tenderer in dealing with a matter of this kind because individuals in whom we are interested are concerned? Surely my Lords you will do nothing of the kind. It may make it more difficult, hut it should he done.
There is another observation that it seems to me comes with very full force on the merits of this question. It would he had if a naturalised enemy alien was on our Privy Council who had been able to shed his enemy nationality. How does the ease stand if we find on our Privy Council naturalised enemy aliens who have not been able to shed their foreign naturalisation and who are still Germans? I do not blame them. I ventured to say that a week ago. I hope 426 that I did not get out of sympathy with any of your Lordships by the speech that I made then because I said it was not their fault but was the fault of the laws of the two countries, England and Germany. Germany said, "Once a German, always a German." The German comes over here and gets naturalised and means to be, I assume, a good honest British citizen, and carries that out so far that he is made a member of His Majesty's Privy Council. Then comes in the fatal evil that lie still remains a member of the country that he left. We all have two Privy Councillors in our minds, and we must have them in our minds when I am speaking. Am I wrong in saying that they have a double nationality? Ought they to be on the Privy Council? Under which King Bezonian? How are you to divide them up? They want to be in allegiance to His Majesty but all the time there is another country to whom they are bound by allegiance. I was struck by the remark that the noble and learned Lord Chancellor made on another Amendment. He said "a State that claims his allegiance which is at war with His Majesty." You have in the cases of Sir Ernest Cassel and Sir Edgar Speyer men whose allegiance is claimed by Germany and they remain Members of the Privy Council. Your Lordships are just as good a judge as I am—much better indeed—of what ought to be done or what ought not to be done.
May I take the other head of my proposition. Men who fall under this taint, as I call it, ought not be members of either House of Parliament. Let me deal with the House of Commons. Your Lordships will not have forgotten the case of a man named Trebitch Lincoln. He was a naturalised German. We all remember his being elected to a seat in the House of Commons, I think for Darlington. The Radical Whips blessed him and sent him down there. I heard his maiden speech in the House of Commons. With a very strong flavour of Germanism in his accent, he made a big speech, if I remember right on Free Trade—Free Trade for this country of course, not for Germany. Where is he now? I hope that he is safe under lock and key. I think he got a term of penal servitude. That is the sort of man who, under our laws, actually finds a seat in the House of Commons. Are we going to allow that to continue? Surely the time has come to clean out the stables. It may be a labour of Hercules. Hercules 427 found it one of the most difficult of his labours to clean out the Augean stables. Ought we not to make a beginning first of all with the counsellors of the Sovereign, and secondly with the Houses of Legislature, if cases such there be. Of course we know that we ought to make a beginning. A noble Lord said to me the other day in business language, "Well, it is very difficult to job back." I know it is difficult. We have got ourselves into the wrong position, and it is difficult to recover, but we ought to make a beginning.
Your Lordships may say, "It. is hard to make this retrospective," and you may ask, "Are we not interfering with rights that have been given, and with positions that have been confirmed?" This war has seen almost every right within the human category interfered with. That cannot be an argument. Hardly any rights remain. Salus populi suprema lex. It is a question of whether it is right or whether it is wrong. And however painful it may he to make this proposal retrospective and bring in within the net of this clause a man who for aught I know—I have no reason to think otherwise—may have done excellent service to this country it ought to he done, and therefore I Venture to ask your Lordships to do it.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, line 7, at end insert as a. new subsection:
(3) At the end of subsection (1) of section three (which relates to the effect of certificates of naturalisation) insert ('provided that no naturalised alien who has been at any time the subject of a country which during the present war is or shall be at war with His Majesty, shall be capable to be or remain a member of the Privy Council or a member of either House of Parliament after the thirty-first day of August, in the year nineteen hundred and eighteen'), and at the beginning of subsection (2) of section three insert ('so far as is not inconsistent with this Act')".—(Lord Wittenham.)
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI desire at once to give a reply on this question. I am the first to admit- that my noble friend is not actuated by any personal feelings in connection with the Amendment which he thought it right to put on the Paper. I am very sorry that his sense of duty differs from mine. I desire to offer the most emphatic opposition to this Amendment. My noble friend remarked that he did not approach this question from any personal point of view. I am quite sure of that. But at the same time I venture to suggest that it is impossible to separate the personal view from this particular Amend- 428 ment. The Amendment concerns three persons, or rather two persons, because the question of one, Sir Edgar Speyer, is as I believe was stated by the Leader of the House of Commons, under consideration. There are only two other persons whom it concerns. One is a member of your Lordships' House—Admiral the Marquess of Milford Haven, and the other, who was also mentioned by my noble friend, is Sir Ernest Cassel. The Marquess of Milford Haven was honoured by the Sovereign by being sworn of the Privy Council after a long, honourable, and distinguished career in the British Navy.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTHe was naturalised under the law of 1844, and again naturalised under the law of 1870 because, had that second course not been taken, I understand that naturalisation would not have extended to his children. He had been for uearly fifty years in the service of the Navy. He had held the highest posts, and, as even the "man-in-the-street" knew, we were under great obligations to him at the beginning of the war.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTHe has two sons serving in his Majesty's Navy to-day with distinction. Members of that family have fallen; and when my noble friend says the women of this country weep, we know it well and we sympathise, but that family has wept too. And we are asked by my noble friend, first, that the insult of being withdrawn from the Privy Council should be levelled against this distinguished Admiral, who is such an ornament of your Lordships' House, and in the second place that the patent of a position in your Lordships' House should be torn up. So much for this distinguished public officer.
The noble Lord mentioned another name the name of Sir Ernest Cassel. He has not had the opportunity of serving in the public Service which has been granted to the noble Marquess to whom I have referred, but for over thirty years Sir Ernest Cassel has been one of the most benevolent subjects of the King in every walk of life. There has been no good object that has not had his support. His kith and kin also have been in the trenches, and each and every one of them who has not been in the trenches—I mean the 429 female members of the family—has been engaged in war work of various descriptions. Many public men have availed themselves of the great ability which he possesses. I submit that these two men, the Marquess of Milford Haven and Sir Ernest Cassel, should not be subjected to what I call the insult proposed by this intendment. Indeed, I will go further awl say that it would be against the ideas of British justice and the tradition of the House of Lords. And the frequent attacks that are made upon these men—I am not speaking of your Lordships' House—are little short of persecution. To such a policy as that suggested in the Amendment I cannot and will not subscribe.
§ THE EARL OF VERULAMI regret exceedingly that I feel it my duty to rise on this occasion to oppose my noble relative in the course which he has seen fit to take. I should not have expected that he would have done this because, as he knows perfectly well, I and my family are most intimately connected with ties of relationship with the distinguished family whose name he has just mentioned. One of that family has fought for us in the trenches. Sir Ernest Cassel was able to say that at the beginning of the war every member of his family of military age was taking his part in the active service of the Crown. One member of that family was in the touches for six months within, I think, 86 yards of the Germans, and took part in many engagements. If I read this Amendment correctly that member would never be able to resume his place in the House of Commons of which he was a. bright ornament. I really hardly have patience to go through these things. The only thing I will say to complete that part of the story is et tu Brute.
With regard to the question of the House of Commons I may make one practical observation which ought at once to dispel the accusation that because a man is an alien he is unfit to be placed in a position of a Member of Parliament. Surely the noble Lord does not wish to fetter the freedom of the electors. They ought to know whom they wish to choose. If they wish to choose a man who, as I know has been the whole of his life since the age of two a resident in this country, surely they have a right to do so.
Only one more point and I have done. It has been said in Holy Writ, "Where your treasure is there will your heart be 430 also." I think I am not giving away confidences when I say that of my own personal knowledge Sir Ernest Cassel estimates the value of his wealth in Germany at the modest figure of five sovereigns. It is well known of course that he has money elsewhere.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSBefore this Amendment is voted upon, I should like to say this. I have expressed my opinion in this House on more than one occasion that persons of alien enemy origin should not be of the Privy Council. I still think so. But we are at a disadvantage in a Bill of this kind when dealing with hard cases. There are hard cases everywhere, and we all admit that they have to be provided for. Until just now I had no idea one does not always think how a thing works—that this Amendment would affect the Marquess of Milford Haven. I should be prepared to vote for the Amendment, but I should like the noble Lord—who I do not think knew that it affected the noble Marquess—to put at the end of his Amendment, "nothing in the clause shall be taken as dealing with the Marquess of Milford Haven."
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSYou can only deal with hard cases by making exceptions. These things ought to be dealt with because there is suspicion outside. That suspicion ought to be met; for as long as people know that we have naturalised Germans on the Privy Council suspicion will always exist. With the one exception that I have mentioned, I still think that this Amendment ought to he embodied in the law of the land.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIRE rose to speak—
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREAm I not to be allowed to say a word?
§ THE MARQUESS OF LINCOLNSHIREI heard the speech which fell from Lord Sandhurst with a certain amount of astonishment. I never thought for one moment that any member of the Royal Family would be brought into this dis- 431 cussion. It seems to me—and I am speaking with great respect—that these two circumstances are absolutely and entirely different. The Marquess of Milford Haven stood in your Lordships' House and solemnly swore before Almighty God and before your Lordships to be faithful to His Majesty the King. He renounced all his titles, all his honours, and—I am speaking under correction—I believe all his property; he also renounced the Kaiser and all his works. [Laughter]. I honestly do not think that this is a laughing matter. These are terrible and critical times, and the people must not be afraid to speak. As I have said, I did not consider that in any way a member of the Royal Family would have come under this Bill. If I had had any such idea I hope your Lordships will believe me when I say that nothing on earth would have induced to put down the Amendment which is standing in my name on the Paper.
But there is a serious matter before the country. It is impossible to deny that there is here a strong feeling against alien enemies. We on this side of the blouse have in no way been attempting or trying to put difficulties in the way of His Majesty's Government. On the contrary, we have tried to act in the same way as the noble Earl, Lord Jersey, who set us such a good example in that temperate and statesmanlike speech which he made a short while ago. All our objects, all our efforts, and all our endeavours have been, not to thwart, not to trouble, not to harass, and not to annoy His Majesty's Government, but to do all we possibly could to strengthen them, and to bring them to see what is the real feeling of the country.
And I think we have succeeded to a certain extent, because on the Second Reading of the Bill the Front Bench was an absolute desert. My noble friend Lord Sandhurst, like an hereditary Casabianca, sat by himself on that Bench deserted by all his colleagues while the storm raged round him; not one word being said in favour of the Bill. The Lord Chancellor at last came to the rescue, and a Second Reading was given to the Bill merely on the grounds so well explained by the noble and learned Earl, Lord Halsbury. Everybody knows that mischievous rumours are abroad. How mischievous the rumours and suspicions are, or how widely they are spread, 432 few people realise. The people are under this impression that there is one law for the rich and another law for the poor. There is no doubt about that. We have seen what happened lately in the case of Sir Joseph Jonas who was fined £2,000 for what was called a "misdemeanour," but a misdemeanour by which possibly some English people may have lost their lives. And yet in the same newspaper we read that a servant girl was sent to prison for giving cigarettes to German prisoners.
What we ask is that we shall all he treated alike. If that is done the discontent and the suspicion, which are very great—perhaps unfounded; I do not know; but no doubt they exist—will disappear at once. We have an object-lesson before us in what happened with regard to the Food Controller's Department. The queues and the difficulty of getting food almost caused a riot in some places. People had the idea that some obtained plenty of food while others had to go short. But Lord Rhondda put the "gorging Georgies" and the "guzzling Jimmies" of the Ritz and other like places on the same footing as the costermongers of Whitechapel, and the whole trouble ceased.
With regard to these aliens whom we suggest should no longer belong to the Privy Council, leaving out the Royal Family—as I believe we ought to leave it out—this applies to only two men; one is Sir Edgar Speyer, and the other is Sir Ernest Cassel. Sir Edgar Speyer has fortunately taken himself off to the United States of America, where I hope he will remain. He resigned his Privy Councillorship—some noble Lord said he threw it in the face of the Sovereign. Though we recognise the patriotism which caused him to resign his Privy Councillorship, and, I believe, his baronetcy, yet we cannot too strongly condemn the brutal and insolent German manner in which he did it.
Really when you come to think of it, the matter only concerns one single man. It is a terrible thing even to be supposed to attack an individual, but there practically is no attack made on any individual. One noble Lord, during the debate, said that Sir Ernest Cassel had behaved—I forget the exact words, but in a magnificent or splendid manner since the war. There is no doubt that, in the language of the 433 Foreign Office, Sir Ernest Cassel has behaved in a very correct manner; there is no doubt of that. There is no accusation brought against him, there is no charge shown against him, there is no venom shown against him. Nothing of the sort. The whole question before the House is: Is a great principle, which ought never to have been interfered with, to be wiped out absolutely in order to make an exception for one single man, no matter how worthy, how honourable, and how upright that man might be?
Then I have to ask, What, after all, are the special services? We all know what Sir Ernest Cassel has done, but we have a right to ask some one to tell the House what special services and benefactions to the State this gentleman has done which would justify the abandonment for ever of a great principle which the bulk of the nation wish to see restored, and which I believe firmly they are determined to carry out. I have to thank the House very gratefully and very respectfully for having borne with me in saying these few words. It is a terrible task to have to undertake—it is a dreadful thing to have to say a word against anybody; but I felt it to be my public duty to say these few words, and I hope the House will accept them in the spirit in which they have been given.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON)In the position which I happen to occupy I hope I may be permitted, and I think may be expected by your Lordships, to say one or two words on this question before you proceed to a decision. The noble Marquess who has just spoken said that there should be no question of discrimination between class and rank. No such question is raised by this Amendment; indeed, the only person who attempted to introduce any such discrimination was the noble Marquess himself, who told us that he would be willing to exclude from the application of this Amendment the name of the Marquess of Milford Haven on the ground that he was a member of the Royal family. It is not upon that ground that we would place the ease of the Marquess of Milford Haven, and I am sure it is not on that ground that he would claim any exemption from the application of this Amendment, should it be carried by your Lordships' House.
Upon the subject of that noble Marquess, I need not add one word to what was said 434 by my noble friend Lord Sandhurst. The career of Lord Milford Haven has been one of the utmost honour and distinction. During the half century in which he has been both a British naturalised subject and a member of the Royal Navy of this country he has rendered what it is not an exaggeration to describe as incomparable services to the land of his adoption. At the beginning of the war—I think it was a year or two before the beginning of the war—he was invested with an office not only of the highest importance and distinction (that of First Sea Lord of the Admiralty), but one involving access to all the most confidential secrets which it is possible for a man to know; and are we now, that noble Lord having resigned that office almost from an excess of sensitiveness in the early stages of the war, having subsequently received the honour of a Peerage at the hands of his Sovereign, and stood at that Table to take his place on the Benches of this House—are we now, either on the one hand to take a step which would east a stain of disgrace upon his career, or on the other hand, by the exemption which my noble friend Lord St. Davids has suggested, to apply a discrimination in his case of which he would be just as much ashamed?
It is all very well to indulge in general reflections, but we have to deal with a case of this sort in its personal application. Its personal application, as the noble Lord told us, is limited to three individuals. We learn that the case of Sir Edgar Speyer is under examination by the Home Office, and I believe a decision on that matter is likely to be announced at no distant date. The case of the noble Marquess, Lord Milford Haven, I have briefly dealt with; and my noble friend Lord Lincolnshire, driven to the last case of Sir Ernest Cassel, asks somebody—I do not know if the challenge was directed to me—to state what are the services that this member of the Privy Council has rendered to the State. May I say, in passing, recalling the stress that my noble friend laid upon the oath taken by Lord Milford Haven when he stood at this Table, that a Privy Councillor also takes an oath of binding duty and allegiance to his Sovereign, and from all I know of Sir Ernest Cassel he would be just as faithful to the extreme interpretation of that oath as would any member of your Lordships' House.
435 What have been the services of Sir Ernest Cassel? I do not refer to his long residence in this country. I do not even refer to the terms of intimate friendship which I have always understood existed between him and an earlier and greatly revered Sovereign, but I allude to facts and circumstances within the knowledge of many of us in your. Lordships' House, and to the services which Sir Ernest Cassel has been enabled to render upon important matters of extreme urgency, involving State issues of capital importance, to successive Ministries of this country. I say that that gentleman has been in the confidence of successive Prime Ministers and has been honoured by successive Governments; and if any one here says that this is referring to confidential matters of which the public knows little, or to his relations with individuals of which the public knows nothing, then I point to his service in Egypt. The regeneration of Egypt during the last fifteen or twenty years has been largely the work of Sir Ernest Cassel—in any case, has been largely contributed to by his generosity and his public spirit. There are few aspects of public life in which Sir Ernest Cassel has not played a large, magnanimous, generous, and patriotic part, and for your Lordships to take any action now which would single this gentleman out for the slur that would arise from the acceptance of this Amendment, would be an action which, upon whomsoever it might inflict pain—I allude to what was said by my noble friend—would inflict nothing but discredit upon your Lordships' House.
§ LORD BERESFORDI would like to ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment, for, as a brother officer of Prince Louis, I would like to pay a testimony that there is not a greater gentleman or a finer officer, or a man who has done better service for the State. I do not think that either of my noble friends who have spoken knew when they put down this Amendment that it would include Prince Louis. I quite agree with what they say about Privy Councillors, and I hope we shall be able to have a Bill shortly, even if private members bring it in, which will prevent Privy Councillors being made again who are of enemy origin. Still in this case we cannot have it both ways. If noble Lords go to a division they cannot subtract Prince Louis from what I must call censure, and therefore I strongly 436 recommend that this Amendment should be withdrawn, so that no slur should be thrown upon a very distinguished officer who is regarded with great affection in the Navy, who is very good all round, and who, when he found at the beginning of the war that there was a very strong feeling held, rightly or wrongly, against a German-born officer being the First Sea Lord, at once sent in his resignation—an act which was appreciated by the whole Service and ought to have been appreciated by the country. He could not do more than that, and I again ask that in the circumstances of the case the Amendment should be withdrawn.
§ LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKEIf this Amendment is to be pressed to a Division, it would not be honourable on my part if I did not say one word. I have had the privilege of knowing Sir Ernest Cassel longer than any Member of this House, and. my father had the honour of presenting him to the late King Edward. It seems to me that if we are going in this country to admit a man to the highest offices, to ask for his support, to enlist his resources in the service of the country, and to ask his advice, we have no right to withdraw, by any public resolution, our confidence in him, until he has been proved unworthy.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI have no desire to make any speech. I merely wish to express my absolute agreement with every word that fell from the noble Earl who leads the House. I desire to add this, that if my noble friend opposite—I have no knowledge of the course which he intends to take—merely withdraws his Amendment on the very admirable grounds put forward by Lord Beresford, that it is not desired to throw any slight upon the noble Marquess, Lord Milford Haven, this I think will not entirely satisfy the case. It must be understood, supposing he is willing to withdraw the Amendment, that it is withdrawn on the merits of the entire question. If my noble friend is not willing to take that course, I should certainly be prepared to move that the Amendment be negatived.
§ VISCOUNT CHAPLINI should not rise except that it so happens that I have had the privilege, for many years, of being an intimate friend of Sir Ernest Cassel, and after the speeches which have been made 437 by the Leader of the House and by the Leader of the Opposition in this House, and by another personal friend of Sir Ernest Cassel, who has known him even longer than I have, I sincerely hope that for his own sake and credit, the noble Lord who moved the Amendment will take the advice given to him.
§ LORD WITTENHAMI am not sure that it is a question of my own credit, but because of the advice I have received I at once, as a new member, desire to withdraw my Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTThe next Amendments standing in my name are merely drafting.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("an enemy State") and insert ("a State at war with His Majesty")
Page 5, line 22, leave out ("advisable") and insert ("desirable").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3:
§ Provisions as to naturalisation certificates.
§ 3. No certificate of naturalisation shall, for a period of five years after the termination of the present war, be granted to any subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His majesty, but this provision shall not apply to a person who—
- (a) has served in His Majesty's forces or in the forces of any of His Majesty's Allies; or
- (b) is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy governments; or
- (c) was at birth a British subject.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTThe effect of the Amendment standing in my name is to insert the subsection which I postponed from an earlier stage of the Bill. There are two Amendments in it, to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention. The first is the addition of the words "United Kingdom." They are added because the matters in question are those which concern only the United Kingdom, and do not come into the legislation in reference to the 438 Dominions. The second matter has reference to the words in lines 5 and 6, "as is provided for in the case of revocation of certificates." It is a drafting Amendment merely due to the change of place which the sub-clause takes in the Bill.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 5, line 37, at beginning insert:
(1) Where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted in the United Kingdom during the present war to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at war with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry, as is provided for in the case of revocation of certificates, the question whether it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked, and if such question shall be answered in the affirmative shall revoke the certificate, but this provision shall not apply to a person who at birth was a British subject.
(2)".—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ LORD BERESFORD, who proposed to amend the proposed new subsection (1), said: My object is one which I think perfectly fair both to this country and to the naturalised aliens. I wanted all the papers revoked, so as to put the net right round, and then those who could prove their bona fides and who wished to be re-naturalised could then be re-naturalised. If we do not do that an enormous number of people will escape the net. It is the fairest way of doing it that everything should be above board, and I deplore the suggestion that the Committee should be in private. I think it should be in public, and I think the names should be put before both Houses of Parliament. There is no doubt it would be much better for these aliens if the whole case was in public, and if the reasons which they gave why they should be re-naturalised were made public I do not think I need dwell on the question. I believe this would be the best way of doing it, because there is no question that there are influences at work in this country, called by all sorts of names, which are directly opposed to British interests and in favour of the interests of Germany. I do not want to break any contract, or to do anything dishonourable, or to make scraps of paper of agreements, but the fact does remain that there are any number of these naturalised Germans who are now interned. I want to get hold of the whole lot, to take away and revoke all their papers, and to make them prove their case before they 439 are re-naturalised. There is no doubt that in a large number of cases those who wish to be re-naturalised will get their papers back, but we shall be in a position to weed out all those who in my opinion are traitors. I beg to move the words standing in my name.
§
Amendment to the Amendment moved—
Line 2, leave out ("during the present war").—(Lord Beresford.)
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI hope that the noble and gallant Lord will not press his Amendment. One reason is that given by the noble Marquess opposite in an earlier stage, when he mentioned the enormous number of cases which would have to be gone into by the Home Office, which would make it almost imposible for a single tribunal to deal with them. And I think my noble and gallant friend will recognise that, although I know and appreciate his view, there would be great hardship to a class of persons against whom no individual attack could be made on the various grounds of misconduct which are set out in the earlier parts of the Bill. It must be remembered that these men have been subjected to the military rules of this country, and many of them have voluntarily undertaken military service.
§ LORD BERESFORDI should like to point out that the argument of my noble friend is in my favour and against himself. He says we cannot do this because there is such an enormous number. That makes the danger doubly acute. If one tribunal cannot do it, have two, or three, or four. If I could get any support I should like to go to a Division on this Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSIs there not an Amendment of mine to the proposed new subsection to leave out, "during the present war"?
THE LORD CHAIRMANYour Lordships have just decided that the words "during the present war" are to remain in the proposed new subsection.
§ LORD BERESFORDI wish to leave out of the proposed subsection the words "at the date of the grant was," in order 440 to insert "at the time of the passing of this or any amending Act is." That means to say that the cases of individuals will come under the provisions of this or any amending Act and not be governed by the date of the grant of the certificate. It would include a large number of people. Will the noble Lord either agree to it or give me a reason for not doing so?
§
Amendment moved—
Line 4, leave out ("at the date of the grant was") and insert ("at the time of the passing of this or any amending Act is").—(Lord Beresford.)
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI do not see how I could agree to my noble and gallant friend's Amendment, because it is mainly consequential upon an Amendment which has been negatived.
§ LORD BERESFORDIt would bring in the Turks and the Bulgarians with whom we were not at war when hostilities first broke out. That is my object.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTBut the proper date to take action for the purpose of the clause would be the date of the grant of the certificate.
§ LORD STUART OF WORTLEYI think the noble Lord is in error. The Amendment would affect probably a very small number of cases—namely, of Turks or Bulgarians, who have been naturalised since the beginning of the war, but before their respective countries came into the war. They may be a small number, but it is difficult to see what reason there is for excluding them at all.
§ On Question, Amendment to the Amendment negatived.
§
LORD WITTENHAM moved to leave out "for a. period of" and insert "until." The noble Lord said: I think there is a want of precision in the language used in the Bill, and that is the reason I make this Motion. Clause 3 says—
No certificate of naturalisation shall, for a period of five years after the termination of the present war—
I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether that
441
would cover the period from now on to the end of the war. The words that I propose make it quite clear. The effect of the Amendment would be that the clause would read—
No certificate of naturalisation shall, until five years after the termination of the present war, be granted to any subject…
The words "period of" leave the matter uncertain.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("for a period of"): and insert ("until").—(Lord Writtenham.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI think there may be something in the point the noble Lord has stated. We will consider it before Report, and see if there is anything in it.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF HALSBURY moved to substitute "fifteen years" for "five years." The noble Earl said: I am happy to say that this Amendment is by no means one of any length, or one which lends itself to any eloquence of any sort or kind. It is to turn the figure "5" into "15." I think the reasons which have induced His Majesty's Government to introduce such a provision at all are events which have taken place during the progress of the war and the opportunities of mischief given to those who have ill-feeling towards this country. I have the strongest reason for think a great deal more than five years is necessary to get rid of some of the effects of what has been done while the war has been going on, and, more particularly, before the war began. There has been a gigantic system of corruption and espionage both before the war and while the war has been going on. I myself must, admit that, in a certain sense, I have to stand in a white sheet, for I did not believe it. But undoubtedly there has been such a system carried on by persons engaged, apparently, in honest transactions.
§ I will take one particular class—waiters in hotels. During the period that I speak of, preceding the war, undoubtedly a great number of German waiters might be found in all parts of Great Britain, and one must have been struck with their extraordinary number. But we now know how that system has been going on. Each waiter when he went received instruction that he was to find out the roads from the central parts of the island to the coast, that if 442 he gave good reports of the number of persons to whom application might be made for information, and gave good and intelligent reports, not only of the roads but of the particular places which were fitted for exercise, lie would receive reward. A good many of them have received rewards for good and intelligent reports. That has been going on not only during the war but for a long period before the war, and I confess it appears to me that the five years in the Bill is much too short a period to allow of the corruption that has been going on to have faded away.
§ It is a matter, I think, of first importance that, in order that we should resume anything like amenities between ourselves and Germany when we make peace, if we do, the effect of this gigantic system of espionage should be put an end to, and that at least a period much longer than five years—the exact number of years must be a matter for consideration—should be taken in order to allow what has been done to be erased, and that you should not have this system at the command of Germany when peace is resumed. For that reason I move the Amendment. As I say it is not capable of much eloquence but it is of practical value. I am encouraged by the fact that it is admitted some such period is necessary, but I consider five years much too short, and I therefore move that the five years should be fifteen years.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, Leave out ("five") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Halsbury.)
§ LORD BERESFORDI should like to support my noble friend in what he has said. The Government say it is right that no enemy alien should be admitted to British citizenship for five years after the war. On what principle is the five years based? If it was twenty-five years it would really represent a principle, because it would represent a generation, and I would rather have twenty-five years than fifteen years. I do not think fifteen years is the least bit too long. We must consider all the crimes against humanity that have been perpetrated in this generation, and it is impossible to know why five years has been chosen. All these crimes have been committed in this generation. The five years will not exclude the majority of the criminals who have committed these atrocious bar- 443 barities. They will be able to come back again, and that is what I object to. Supposing the war ends this year, these barbarians will, in five years, again qualify for naturalisation. I say not only in fairness and justice to our people, but in the process of punishment we should not admit these people back again for fifteen years, and I strongly support the Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI listened with great pleasure to what my noble and learned friend said on the subject of the plague of German waiters. It is a plague from which many of its have suffered, but it is a pity so heroic a remedy was necessary. I trust one effect of the present war will be to abate that plague once and for ever. With regard to the particular Amendment it has been said there is no principle in five years. There is no principle in any particular figure, unless you get up to a generation, as the noble and gallant Lord suggested. But that is rather a long look out. I am not quite sure twenty-five years is quite a generation, but it is very near it. At the same time you must take some figure, and I submit that fifteen years, and ten years even, is too long. Five years is taken for this reason. It is a good reasonable period and, if circumstances render it desirable, at the end of five years it can be prolonged. We cannot foresee what exactly will be the state of things. Of course it would gratify our feelings very much to say never. Some, perhaps, would welcome an absolute embargo to all eternity, as long as this country lasts, upon the admission of those who have behaved as the people of Germany have behaved with regard to this country. But I do not think that is business. Five years is a reasonable time, and, if the circumstances call for it, it can be renewed. There is no principle in ten years, or fifteen years, and I do not think any one would venture to propose twenty-five years, in which there is just the gleam of a principle.
§ VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDSI hope the Amendment will be accepted by your Lordships. The Lord Chancellor says that if you put in five years, and the circumstances demand it, you can alter it to fifteen years. I suggest that if you put in fifteen years, and the circumstances demand it, you can shorten it to five years. You can do the one just as easily as the other. I do not think it is a serious argument, and I hope 444 the House will accept the Amendment of the noble and learned Earl.
§ LORD RIBBLESDALEI hope the House will not accept the Amendment. I remember in Lord Granville's letters, when he was a young man, he wrote saying, "The Greeks were almost ferociously loyal." I forget to whom they were loyal, but I think that we have become almost crazy about the whole of this alien question, and that we are in some danger of becoming ferociously insular. I quite think the way we welcomed aliens of every sort, the way England has been looked upon as a land of Goshen, has landed us into the difficulties we are experiencing now. I am not concerned to say whether it is a good thing or a bad thing, but it is the case, and we have been looked upon in European countries as rather ridiculous. We are reaping what we have sown, but we shall appear more ridiculous still if we fly with such tremendous violence as some people recommend not in this House but in Hyde Park and in some sections of the Press, into the other direction. I therefore hope very much that the House will have nothing to do with the proposed Amendment.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI think that five years is a very brief period. I do not wish to speak in any very strong terms, but surely, when we reflect upon the very elaborate system under which the German espionage system was worked before the war, it does seem almost absurd that the whole thing should be allowed to be begun over again five years from the termination of the war. None of us believed it at the time—I certainly did not—but we now know that there was every conceivable kind of arrangement made by which all parts of the country were penetrated by German spies. I am told that the Germans in very humble walks of life were given prizes by the German Government for the reports which they could make of any little topographical information in the neighbourhood of the places where they lived. That happened all over the country. Surely we should shrink from the idea that five years after the end of the war all these people should come again and be once more let into our hospitable shores. I know quite well that what the noble and learned Lord Chancellor says is perfectly true, that these periods of years are always arbitrary, but I must say that five years is a very short period It will 445 be gone almost in a moment, and certainly before the strong feeling which has been aroused will have evaporated. I should think that even if the Government cannot accept fifteen years they ought to agree to a longer period than five years. If my noble friend goes to a Division I shall be compelled to vote with him.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWEI am inclined to agree that the actual number of years named is not in itself a matter of very great importance. It is quite clear that the whole matter must rest in the hands of Parliament, and if Parliament chooses either to lengthen or to shorten the period it will do so whenever it desires. As to the particular point which was made by my noble and learned friend and also by the noble Marquess who has just sat down regarding espionage, I have no doubt that there was attempted to be instituted a quite elaborate system for obtaining knowledge about this country by Germany, and that it was probably carried out on a larger scale and with greater success than the similar attempts which have been made by all countries. But were many of these people who have been alluded to naturalised? I should have thought that very few were naturalised. I should not think that—although the argument has a certain force—the line taken on this Amendment would greatly affect that particular question one way or the other. So far as I am concerned, I do not care whether the period is five years or ten. That is a matter for His Majesty's Government.
§ LORD BERESFORDI beg your Lordships' pardon for intruding, but I wish to emphasise what Lord Salisbury said by relating something which is within my own cognisance. There was a staff ride in Norfolk for English officers to gain knowledge of that county. They went to a certain farm and asked for information as to the brook, the trees, the cattle, &c., and the farmer said that he was not going to give information as he had been bothered out of his life by people riding round and asking these questions. The officers inquired and found that there had been two other staff rides within six weeks. They asked the farmer what sort of people they were who had been to question him, and he said that they did not speak very good English. The officers eventually found out that there had been two German staff rides in Norfolk. It sounds very absurd, but 446 it is true. I will give your Lordships a case within my own experience. I myself took a fleet into Lerwick. It was the biggest, fleet that ever went into Lerwick—
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI do not want to interrupt the noble Lord, but with a view to shortening the proceedings I am in a position to offer a compromise of ten years.
§ On Question, Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("five") and insert ("ten").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTThe following Amendments in my name are drafting.
§
Amendments moved—
Page 5, line 38, after ("granted") insert ("in the United Kingdom").
Page 6, line 4, after ("Allies") insert ("or of any country acting in naval or military co-operation with His Majesty").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
LORD TENTERDENThe object of my proposed new clause is to prevent this Bill applying to Armenians. I refer not to the Armenians who actually are our Allies, but to the Armenians who are technically under Turkish nationality but whose sympathies are entirely with us, and always have been. The Armenians who are left are fighting very hard at present on our Eastern front, and holding up the enemy there. Many Armenians have joined the various legions in the British, American and French armies. They are fighting for the Allies, and is it fair that they should have to suffer as if they were our enemies? They have no land of their own to return to, and it is not right that they should be treated as enemy aliens. Under the Aliens Restriction Act, 1915, an Order in Council was made affording to these Armenians extraordinary treatment as to hospitality under the British Government. The Order which is dated January 7, 1915, reads as follow—
Now, therefore, His Majesty is pleased by and with the advice of his Privy Council, to order, and it is hereby ordered, as follows:25B. A registration officer may, subject to the general or special instructions of the Secretary of 447 State, grant to a Turkish subject resident in Ms registration district, who is shown to his satisfaction to be by race a Greek, Armenian, or Syrian, or a member of any other community well known as opposed to the Turkish regime, and to be a Christian, a certificate of exemption from all or any of the provisions of this part of this Order, except such as apply to alien friends.Any such certificate shall be operative throughout the United Kingdom, but may be revoked by the registration officer who granted it, or by the registration officer of any district in which the holder is for the time being resident.2. This Order may be cited as the Aliens Restriction (Armenians, &c.) Order, 1915.I hope the Government will afford the same generous hospitality to these unfortunate Armenians who have had to take refuge on the shores of Great Britain as they have hitherto done. They have no country to turn to, and they have fought and are fighting still—what is left of them, those who have not been exterminated—on the side of the Allies, and I feel certain that His Majesty's Government will consider seriously the question of still affording them that generous treatment.
§
Amendment moved—
Insert as a new clause:
§ Exemption of Armenians.
§ "Nothing in this Act shall apply to Armenians."—(Lord Tenterden.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not know whether your Lordships happen to have observed that by a printers' blunder on the first day on which this Amendment was set down it read, "Nothing in this Act shall apply to Americans." That printer's blunder has now been corrected. In reply to the noble Lord who moved this Amendment I may say that we have always an attitude of sympathy towards Armenians, but there may be exceptional cases in which an Armenian who has been naturalised shows himself disloyal and if he is guilty of some of the acts mentioned in a preceding clause there is no reason why he should not be liable to have the certificate taken away. But it is rather too sweeping to say that nothing in the Act shall apply to Armenians. Then there is a. further difficulty. I am not at all certain that it is quite easy to say whether a man is an Armenian or not. This is not a question of a person living in a particular district or country, it is the race. Difficult questions might arise. Under all these circumstances I submit to the noble Lord that it would be better not to press the Amendment.
LORD TENTERDENIf this is too sweeping a clause, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Armenians will still enjoy the same privileges as they did under the Order in Council of 1915. Under that Order in Council it is possible for the Registration Officer to know whether they are Armenians, and also to know whether they are what they represent themselves, to be. If so, they should still be allowed to enjoy the privileges which they have enjoyed in the past. If that were done I should be glad to withdraw the Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTI can assure the noble Lord that under this Bill they will be under no disabilities.
§ VISCOUNT SANDHURSTYes.
LORD TENTERDENI am assured by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill that the Armenians will enjoy the same privileges as they enjoyed under the Order in Council in 1915. I beg to thank the Government for the generosity they have extended to this race in the past, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.