HL Deb 05 August 1918 vol 31 cc524-31

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Clause 1:

THE MARQESS OF SALISBURY

I am exceedingly sorry to again trouble your Lordships, but I will promise to be extremely brief. As Clause I emerged from Committee the first subsection is mandatory in form, and the second subsection is discretionary. I ventured to say, during the last stage of the Bill, that I was afraid the different paragraphs of the second subsection had not been properly distributed, and that one or two of them—the discretionary paragraphs—ought to find their place in the mandatory subsection.

The object of the Amendment standing in my name is to move the first two subheads of the discretionary subsection into the mandatory section, and make them mandatory instead of discretionary. If your Lordships will he so good as to look at the Bill you will find that the first two heads of the second subsection are in the first place the ease where a naturalised alien has shown himself by act or Speech a subject disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, and in the second ease where he has during any war in which His Majesty is engaged unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy. It is quite clear that these are the highest crimes and misdemeanours that a naturalised alien can commit. They are a violation at its very root of his loyalty to his new country. Therefore it scents right that his naturalisation should be ipso facto subject to immediate destruction, and that he should revert to his own nationality. These people ought, therefore, to come in the mandatory subsection.

When you come to the later sub-heads of the second subsection you deal with the naturalised alien who has been in prison, or was not of good character at the date of his certificate, or has resided for a long time out of His Majesty's Dominions, or has that intricate status of double nationality of which we talked so much in Committee. These matters are not absolutely necessarily evidence of disloyalty to his new nationality; in fact, some of them are not evidence at all. They are, however, undesirable qualifications, but they do not really strike at the very root of the conditions upon which a man is entitled to claim British nationality. Therefore these should properly be left in the discretionary subsection of the clause. I do not desire, I need not tell your Lordships, to press this upon the Government more than offering it as a suggestion. I believe that it will improve very much the drafting of the Bill. If they were content to accept that Amendment then for any part I should be quite willing that the opening words should run, instead of "where it appears to the Secretary of State," "where the Secretary of State is satisfied," making it quite clear at the beginning what was intended. That is a matter entirely for His Majesty's Government. If they wish me to move it in that form I would do so, nothing the words of line 9 "where the Secretary of state is satisfied." But that is a small detail.

In any case I offer it as an improvement, to the Bill. If the Government thought then that the second subsection should be made more discretionary than it is by the restoration of the word "may," I should not object. I was anxious to have "shall" instead of "may" in the subsection because of these terrific crimes with which it deals—namely, disaffection to His Majesty and communication with the enemy. I suggest, if I may do so with proper diffidence, that my form of drafting the two subsections is really sounder than that submitted by His Majesty's Government.

Amendment moved—

Page 1, line 9, after ("that") insert ("(a)") line 12, after ("circumstances") insert ("or") (b) the person to whom the certificate was granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty; or (c) the person to whom the certificate was granted 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").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

I can assure the noble Marquess that I in no way complain of what he calls his persistency. Throughout this rather difficult Bill I have received nothing but the greatest kindness from the noble Marquess and his friends, and I know how keenly they feel upon this important subject. Subsection (1) as it stands refers only to circumstances which have been known at the time of naturalisation, and which would have prevented a certificate being granted. It would, there fore, be right that when the offence is discovered the certificate should without more ado be revoked. The noble Marquess wishes to put (a) and (b) in the Bill, as he has explained just now, in an equally automatic position to that portion of the Bill to which I have just referred. In regard to (a) there can hardly exists a doubt as to the withdrawal of the certificate.

But may I put a point before the noble Marquess to which he did not refer in the speech that he made. In regard to (b) it is very possible that some of the communications referred to in the clause may be of a trivial or innocent nature, yet technically unlawful, and therefore the certificate would be automatically revoked if the Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess were made. But in such a case the certificate ought only to be revoked if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. For these reasons I wish to be allowed to keep the words where they are. I should therefore be greatly indebted to the noble Marquess if he did not press his Amendment.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS

I hope that the noble Marquess will press his Amendment. If the words are left in the second category, a man may have shown himself disloyal by act or speech to His Majesty, the King, and may have done these other acts, and yet he is not to be denaturalised unless he can show the positive fact that the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to public good. We must remember that in this time of war it may be very drastically interpreted, but supposing the war comes to an end before all these cases have been gone into. It may very well then be held in regard to a particular individual who has been disloyal—"It is true he had communicated with the enemy, but the war is now over." He is perhaps an elderly man, and some Home Secretary or his advisers may say, "Well, it is quite true that he had done all that, but now we are in time of peace, and are we deliberately to say that the continuance of the certificate is not, conducive to the public good" That is a pretty strong statement to make. That is why I suggested, though the House would not adopt it, that the onus should be the other way. The House, however, would not have it, and I will not say anything more about it now. Still that is a very strong line to lay down by any man in peace time. It may be interpreted in peace time that his retention is conducive to the public good. Although these men may have been treasonable, still it may be said, "You can hardly put it down that their retention in England is not conducive to the public good." I think that the noble Marquess has a very strong case for transfering these words from the second to the first category. It is a pity that the noble Marquess did not bring it forward in the Committee stage, when more noble Lords were present to hear the argument which has been so forcibly put, and which appears to me to be quite unanswerable.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I can quite see the force of what the noble Lord said as to the difference existing between the two heads or subheads to which his Amendment is directed. The first is "that the person to whom the certificate was granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty." That is a definite act of disloyalty, and I think one may say that if the Secretary of State is satisfied of that—because, of course, the decision must be left to the Secretary of State for the time—it seems to follow that the offender should cease to enjoy the advantages of naturalisation. One cannot see that the Secretary of State has any other way out of it. As regards that, therefore, I do not think any harm would be done by making the change which the noble Marquess proposes. I will read the words as they stand so as to show how it would work. The second case which it is also proposed to put within the same category as the present first sub-head is this, that the person— 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 associated with any business which is to his knowledge carried on in such manner as to assist the enemy in such war. The law as to communicating with the enemy is rather strict, and all communication with the enemy, if you take it strictly and technically, is unlawful. There might be some perfectly innocent communication with the enemy with regard to some property which the naturalised person happened to have left in the country, or it might be some private matter—some near relative might happen to be in a very critical state of health, and there might be great anxiety to make inquiries. If you take the strict rigour of the law I suppose such a man ought to get the license of the Crown to communicate with any one in enemy territory, even ill regard to such a matter as that. At all events, it is not at all clear that it would be safe to say that such a thing is lawful without the license of the Crown. Suppose we make the first sub-head run thus— 7.—(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied— I agree with the noble Marquess that this would be a change for the better— that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representation or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances, or that— The word "that" must be there inserted, because it is to be governed by "the Secretary of State is satisfied"— the person to whom the certificate is granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall by Order revoke the certificate. That stands by itself. Then you go on to the next subsection— Without prejudice to the foregoing provisions the Secretary of State shall by order revoke a certificate of naturalisation granted by him in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted either— (a) has during any war in which His Majesty is engaged… and so on. I think this would meet the views of the noble Marquess. I would suggest that it is in accordance with what was said by the noble Viscount in charge of the Bill, and that it might be accepted as a solution.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and by the leave of the House I will move it in that form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert ("(1) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representation or fraud or by concealment of material circumstances or that the person to whom the certificate is granted has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected or disloyal to His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall by order revoke the certificate").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

Lines 19 and 20 have to come out.

Amendment moved— Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out ("(a) has shown himself by act or speech to be disaffected Or disloyal to His Majesty; or").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3:

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

There was a matter which was called attention to by Lord Wittenham on the last stage, Clause 3, page 6, line 1. It involved the words "for a period" which were thought to be unsatisfactory. I propose to leave out the word "for" and to insert "before the expiration of." The point is that as the clause stands it perhaps does not provide for the time between now and the end of the war. It is certainly intended to do so and to make it quite clear we will alter the words as proposed.

Amendment moved— Clause 3, page 6, line 1, leave out ("for") and insert ("before the expiration of").—(Viscount Sandhurst.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD BERESFORD

I have a new clause which I hope your Lordships will accept. It is to provide that "The police in every district shall require every alien resident therein to furnish them with a statement in writing of the name under which they are known at the time the statement is made, and of any other name or names under which they have been known or traded at any time since the first day of January nineteen hundred and twelve." The reason why I put in that date is that that was the year when a very large number of Germans became naturalised neutrals—not naturalised Englishmen—and those are the people who are at present taking over the single shops of the men in the trenches, which have up to now been occupied by older people in the family who have been called up. I do not see why the Government should object to this, because it is very much on the lines of their own Act of 1916, the Registration of Business Names Act, which covers in Clause 1—

  1. "(a) Every firm having a place of business in the United Kingdom and carrying on business under a business name which does not consist of the true surnames of all partners who are individuals and the corporate names of all partners 530 who are corporations without any addition other than the true Christian names of individual partners or initials of such Christian names;
  2. "(b) Every individual having a place of business in the United Kingdom and carrying on business under a business name which does not consist of his true surname without any addition other than his true Christian name or the initials thereof;
  3. "(c) Every individual or firm having a place of business in the United Kingdom, who, or a member of which, has either before or after the passing of this Act charged his name, except in the case of a woman in consequence of marriage."
I think this changing of names is one of the matters connected with aliens that is annoying the public very much. It is very unfair to our own people. Take my own ease. If a man whose name is Mosenthal changes it to Beresford I do not mind if he calls himself Mosenthal-Beresford; but if he calls himself "Beresford" without prefixing Iris previous name I should consider it a reflection upon my family.

There is a man named Muller who took the very old English name of Christie Miller. The family of that name objected, and wrote to him and their solicitors were put into communication with him; but there is no law to prevent anyone from taking any name he likes. The clause which I suggest would put an end to this, or it would make public the fact of the change of a man's mine front a German to an English flume. I hope that my noble friend will give way on this question. Although the Bill is a great deal better than we expected it to be, and although it has been considerably altered it does not yet meet the views of the public; and from the letters I have received I am certain that if we have a General Election shortly—or whenever we have a General Election—the first plank with the public will be this question of aliens. Therefore as far as we can make the Bill better in this House, and more in consonance with public opinion, the better it will be. I hope that my noble friend will allow this new clause to come into the Bill after Clause 3.

Amendment moved— Insert the following new clause:

"Statement by aliens of change of name.

". The police in every district shall require every alien resident therein to furnish them wit h a statement in writing of the name under which they are known at the time the statement is made, and of any other name or names under which they have been known or traded at any time since the first day of January nineteen hundred and twelve."—(Lord Beresford.)

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

My Lords, I know how anxious my noble and gallant friend is to make this Bill effective; but, on the other hand, I Can assure him that the feeling of His Majesty's Government is also to make it effective. The matter which the noble and gallant Admiral has raised is really not one for the Nationality Bill, but for the administration under Orders in Council made in virtue of the Aliens' Restriction Act of 1914. Under the current Order in Council all aliens are required to register with the police and to supply the police with full particulars relating to themselves, including their names. If it is found desirable to require information as to any name which an alien may have used since January 1, 1912, the way to do it is by police action or, if necessary, by a new provision in the Orders in Council. No amendment to this Bill, I can assure my noble and gallant friend, is required, and the point is really outside the scope of the Bill which I have conducted in your Lordships' House.

LORD BERESFORD

My noble friend agrees with me that the question ought to be looked into. As I understand him, I have to go to the Order in Council Office to carry out what I want?

VISCOUNT SANDHURST

Yes; that is right.

LORD BERESFORD

I will do that when we meet again. I will either frame some Bill, or some clause, or some suggestion which I hope the Government will accept; but by that time the Government will find that public opinion is more angry in connection with this question than it is at present. I beg to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Then (Standing Order No. XXXIX having been suspended) Bill read 3a and passed, and returned to the Commons.