HL Deb 26 June 1946 vol 141 cc1153-71

2.42 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL rose to call attention to the present law relating to the nationality of married women, which deprives British women of their nationality on marriage with a foreigner, and also confers British nationality on any alien woman who marries a British subject; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, the Motion which stands in my name, and which I now beg to move, raises a question which is a matter of grievance to some thousands of our fellow subjects. It is the provision of the law which declares that any British woman who marries a man of foreign nationality thereby loses her own British citizenship. There are, it is true, certain special cases in which exceptions are made, and I will briefly refer to them now, in order to deal with these minor points at the outset If a woman, on marriage to an alien, does not acquire her husband's nationality, owing to the provisions of the domestic law of his own State, then she retains her British nationality rather than becoming stateless. That is in accordance with an international convention entered into a few years ago.

Secondly, if such a marriage is ended by the death of the husband, or by divorce, then she can, if she wishes, resume her British nationality. Thirdly, if during the war her husband became an enemy alien, then again she can retain her British nationality, and there is also the case in which a British husband may take another nationality subsequent to the marriage, in which case the woman can retain her own. Those, however, are exceptional cases, and in general after the marriage ceremony and the signature in the marriage register, any British woman who marries an alien loses her British nationality and becomes a foreigner, although she herself may never have left this country, may have no intention of leaving this country, and her husband might even have been resident here for years. She becomes an alien and loses her vote as a citizen, is not able to stand for membership of public authorities, and is subjected to all the restrictions which devolve upon aliens resident in this country.

Of course it may be said that women who marry foreigners know what they are doing and must accept the consequences. But surely it has never been regarded as an improper or, still less an illegal thing for any British subject to marry a foreign person, whether a man marrying a woman or a woman marrying a man. There have been many Anglo-American marriages which have brought admirable accretions to our population. The off-spring of one such marriage became during the war the most illustrious Englishman of our day. Certainly that marriage could not have been regarded as detrimental to the public interest. Another case was the first woman Member of Parliament, who was born an American. You cannot say that it is right for an Englishman, or not improper for an Englishman, to marry an alien woman, but it is wholly objectionable for a British woman to marry a foreign man. It rather reminds me of the observation a lady of my acquaintance made to me quite recently, when she said if she were asked her advice about marriage she would say that every woman ought to marry and no man.

Marriage should undoubtedly be a question of affection, of suitability of character, and questions of frontiers or nationality should not be regarded as an absolute bar. Why should any woman, if she sees opening before her the prospect of a happy married life based upon mutual affection, bringing with it perhaps a home and motherhood and all that that means to a woman, be put into the dilemma, if the man happens to be a citizen of another country, of being able to contract that marriage only at the cost of losing her rights of citizenship in the country to which she may be devoted, for which perhaps she may have made great sacrifices, and to which she may have rendered great service? Why should she be put into the tragic dilemma—I want to put it succinctly—of having to choose between love on the one hand and loyalty on the other?

Then there is the same question in reverse, which is also covered by the terms of the Motion I am now bringing before the House, that is to say, the case of an alien woman who marries a British subject and thereby automatically becomes a British national. A few months ago the Home Secretary, when announcing in another place that applications for naturalization, which had been in suspense during the war, might now be considered in certain cases, used these words: It will, I am sure, be agreed, that the high privilege of British citizenship should not be conferred rashly and without adequate investigation. Certainly that would be agreed, and we all know that, before any alien is admitted to British naturalization, in the ordinary course his application has to be supported by responsible British citizens, careful investigations have to be made into his character and into his knowledge of the English language, and he must have resided in this country for a period of five years. But any woman can give the "go-by" to all those conditions. By contracting a marriage with any British national, she goes into the registry office an alien, and comes out a British subject. There is no inquiry as to character, no inquiry as to knowledge of the language, no conditions as to residence. And there have been cases known to the Home Office in which foreign women have been imported for immoral purposes. They have gone through a form of marriage with British subjects who have been remunerated for the service. The marriages have not been effective marriages, but the women have become British subjects and cannot be deported as aliens. One case, not exactly of that character, came to my notice. A correspondent unknown to me, on seeing the announcement that this discussion was to take place in your Lordships' House to-day, wrote to me and I have permission to quote the letter. I (a British citizen) married in January, 1945, in London, an Austrian woman with whom I fell deeply in love, who immediately after the ceremony made it clear that she neither intended to consummate the marriage nor to live with me … I obtained a decree nisi of nullity in February of this year. The result—to me, great mental and emotional unhappiness … to her, as a reward for her cruel, immoral and carefully calculated action, the gift of the much-desired British nationality automatically acquired on marriage, and of which not even a decree of nullity within a few months of the marriage can deprive her. Whether that correctly states the law I do not know, but apart from that the fact remains that there are such cases of marriage being gone through merely with the object of acquiring British nationality, with all the privileges which that conveys. Neither of these provisions—the one which declares that an alien woman acquires on marriage British nationality, nor the one which declares that a British woman loses on marriage her previous British nationality—is an old provision of our law. They were not part of the ancient common law which endured through the centuries. The first was the result of a provision in a Statute passed in 1844, that is to say, the one that provides that any foreign woman marrying a British subject becomes a British subject herself. The other, that any British woman marrying a foreigner ceases to be British, dates from the year 1870—I think during the lifetime of the oldest among us sitting in your Lordships' House to-day. These are new provisions of the law. The proposal which I am advocating in your Lordships' House is that we should revert to the earlier principle which held good through the centuries.

Nor is a provision such as we have by any means universal. In many other countries the rule is very different. The noble Lord, Lord Alness, introduced a Bill on the subject in this House in July, 1938. I have received a letter from the noble Lord in which he expresses his great regret that recent ill health prevents him from being here to-day to speak in support of this Motion. He gave the facts with regard to other countries. In his speech in the debate on that occasion, he said: In 1918, the rule in most of the European countries and in most of the North American States was that the nationality of a woman followed the nationality of her husband. … Now Russia, in 1918, gave married women the same nationality rights as men. The United States, in 1922, passed similar legislation. Since 1929 China has allowed her women nationals to retain their nationality on marriage with aliens. That means that States in whose territories are comprised half the population of the world permit a married woman to retain her nationality on marriage with a foreigner. Belgium, Roumania, Yugoslavia, Turkey, Albania and Cuba have all conferred similar rights on their nationals. When it is said that such a change in the law as we are advocating would cause great inconvenience with regard to passports or with regard to the care or future custody of children, it should be remembered that all those matters have been dealt with in these other countries. So far as I know, no difficulty whatever has been experienced in the United States or elsewhere where the law has been made to conform with what appears to be the more reasonable principle. I suggest to your Lordships that that principle is not only reasonable but is fundamental. It is that woman is an end in herself and not merely a means to an end; that woman is not an adjunct; that she is substantive and not an adjective. We have heard of the phrase "Peeresses in their own right", but every woman is a person in her own right, and that should apply to questions of nationality as well as to other matters. It was fought out after a long controversy in the Houses of Parliament years ago on the question of married women's property. Although the proposal that married women should have property rights apart from their husbands was strongly resisted, that principle was conceded many years ago, and I do not think any one would now dream of suggesting that that was a wrong provision of the law.

Then we had the controversy of the suffrage. That has been decided, and soon after the enactment of women's suffrage in 1919, Parliament passed the Sex Disqualification Removal Act. That Act provides in its first and operative clause that A person shall not be disqualified by sex or marriage from the exercise of any public function, or from being appointed to or holding any civil or judicial office or post, or from entering or assuming or carrying on any civil profession or vocation. It laid down the principle that sex or marriage shall not be a disqualification from entering any walk of life. But still sex and marriage continue to be a disqualification for remaining a British citizen (which is as important as being able to enter into any vocation) if a woman has married a person who is a foreigner. The principle that I suggest to your Lordships is the right one for acceptance is that if after her marriage a woman is to acquire new nationality, it should be by her own act and volition as in the case of a man, and should not automatically be determined by the fact of her marriage. This matter has been a long time under discussion. In 1925 a Resolution such as the one now before your Lordships' House was passed in another place without dissent. In 1931 there was an international discussion on the matter at the League of Nations at Geneva, and this declaration was made on behalf of the British Government—it was then Mr. Ramsay MacDonald's Coalition Government, in which Conservatives and Liberals were represented. This was the declaration made there on behalf of the Government: The British Government considers that it is right that all disabilities of married women in matters of nationality should be removed, and that, in so far as nationality is concerned, a married woman should be in the same position as a man, married or unmarried, or any single woman. In 1938, as I have mentioned, the Bill of Lord Alness came before your Lordships' House. Then Lord Marley, speaking on behalf of the Labour Opposition, used these words: I want to say a word on this very important measure on behalf of the Opposition. We support the general principles of this measure, and we hope very much that this House will give a Second Reading to the Bill. The Opposition of that day is the Government of to-day. I do not know that any Government or any Party during all those years have ever refuted these principles that have been expressed on various occasions. On the contrary, the new Home Secretary a few months ago when this matter was raised by question and answer in the House of Commons, said on November 15: I have the utmost sympathy with the desire that this state of things should be brought to an end, the state of things being the loss of nationality on marriage. Why, then, has this reform not been carried into effect? It is twenty years since the House of Commons unanimously resolved in its favour, and it is fifteen years since a Government representing all Parties declared similarly in its favour at an international congress at Geneva. There has been continuous pressure since then, led by a committee which represents all the principal women's organizations in this country, forty in number; they have been continually pressing this matter at every opportunity on the attention of the Government. The reason that has been given—and the only reason—is that our nationality laws apply generally over the whole of the British Commonwealth, and that a change such as this ought to be made simultaneously throughout that Commonwealth. It is of course, a fact that the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, does apply uniformly over the Commonwealth; it was passed after a long effort to secure that uniformity, and the fact that it was secured was rightly regarded as a great achievement. But the consequence is that if any change is to be made, all the Dominions have to move in step.

Certain of the Dominions are eager that this reform should be carried out, and in fact Australia and New Zealand have passed legislation to relieve their own women who marry foreigners from such disabilities within their own territories. An Australian woman, for instance, who marries a foreigner and lives in Australia, retains her rights as an Australian citizen. But Australia and New Zealand are not position to give a passport on their own authority; that is done in a form agreed by the Commonwealth as a whole. Canada and India have also declared in favour of this principle, but still the matter lags and drags in one quarter of the Empire or another, and never yet has unanimity been simultaneously achieved. The recent Conference of the Dominion Prime Ministers with the Home Government, which took place in this country, did discuss this matter, although when the Prime Minister was urged to bring it before that Conference, he refused. However, the Dominion Premiers themselves brought it up.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DOMINION AFFAIRS (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

Who asked him?

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

The matter was raised in another place, and the right honourable gentleman said that he thought that was not a suitable occasion on which to discuss it. I have the question here, and I will hand it to the noble Viscount if he wishes. Afterwards the Dominion Premiers raised the matter, and when the Prime Minister was asked about it then, he said that his previous answer was, of course, subject to any desire expressed by the Dominion Premiers, and since they wished to raise the matter he would not entertain any objection. It was, in fact, raised, and the matter is now under discussion between His Majesty's Government in this country and His Majesty's Governments in the Dominions. It has been said, and rightly said, that this question cannot be settled by unilateral action. It cannot, but it ought not to be left unsettled by anything in the nature of a unilateral veto; the majority view should surely prevail. We cannot agree that the pace of action of the Commonwealth is to be determined by the pace of its slowest member.

The Government have declared that they are strongly in favour of the principle of this proposal, but I remember a cynical observation of Prince Bismarck, who said: "When one says that one is in favour of a thing in principle, it means that one does not propose to do anything whatever with regard to it in practice. "The fact is that in this question the months, the years, and the decades have gone by, but it still ambles along and nothing in fact gets done. It is handed from one to another, and now it seems that the Circumlocution Office strides across the whole world and includes one country after another. I submit to your Lordships that the indefinite continuance of this delay ought not to be tolerated, for a great principle is here at stake and a very harmful disability is being imposed upon a number of individual citizens. Finally, the present state of the law is in flat contradiction to the very preamble of the Charter of the United Nations, which reaffirms—these are its words—its "faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women, and of nations, large and small. "I beg to move.

3.5 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, I think we are all agreed that the case for the alteration of the law has been put with great skill, and that an overwhelming ground for an inquiry has been disclosed in the opening speech of my noble friend Viscount Samuel; but I think it would be wrong to assume that there are not some very serious objections to the course which he proposes should be adopted by the Legislature. I hope I may be allowed to state them as briefly as possible, but the matter really lends itself to rather lengthy exposition. My submission is that my noble friend has started with entirely the wrong ground for the proposed amendment to the law. The noble Viscount said provisions regarding marriage and nationality had not been the law for very long, but in fact one of the provisions he mentioned has been the law for 101 years, and after all, 100 years is a pretty long time during which a test may be made as to whether the law is in such a state as to cause inconvenience or unhappiness. As to the Act of 1870, you have to be pretty old to remember the circumstances which led the Legislature to vote in favour of that Act, which, as reference to the records will show, was not passed without a very great deal of consideration and without some speeches by very eminent people of the period. The point with which I will mainly deal is the position of women with British nationality who marry foreigners with the intention of living in a foreign country. My proposition is that the main consideration is whether there is any evidence that the majority of those women would have been happier and would have led more peaceful and contented lives had they continued to be British subjects, with the result that in the countries of their accepted matrimonial domicile they would have been foreigners, and would have had none of the rights attaching to people who had the nationality of that country. It is those people whose wishes I should desire to be ascertained before any change in the law is made.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

Why not give them the option?

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I thought my friend missed that point. What I have said relates only to those who are going to live abroad. The objections I have to a widespread change in the law apply to those who are going to live abroad. If a woman is married in this country to an alien whose desire and intention it is to have a matrimonial domicile in England, and to live here, and who is probably waiting only a short time before he gets naturalization papers, then I think there is very strong ground for supporting the argument which my noble friend has put forward. The noble Viscount's interjection anticipated something I was about to say in reference to people who are going to live abroad. There are two things which have to be considered. First of all, there are the difficulties which are incident to a marriage here with a foreigner who is going to take his bride across the water shortly after the marriage has taken place, and the question of a happy life in a foreign country as an alien. That I think is almost the most important point in the part of the case with which I am dealing.

But there is one other point which my noble friend has passed over as if it were a comparative matter of indifference to a woman, and that point is what is going to be her attitude as regards her children. Take the case of a woman who marries and goes to live in a foreign country. I do not want to pick out one country or another; I will call it Ruritania. She goes to live there with a Ruritanian and she bears him a number of children. Until this country adopts the system of polyandry, which at present does not seem to be a very proximate event, there is no hope of converting people to the thought that children shall have any other nationality but that of the father. That is the rule all over the world except, it may be, in certain semi-savage States. The result is that, in a typical case such as I am considering, a married woman living in a foreign country has borne children who are aliens to her but are natives of their country; they are liable to all the rules that apply to natives, and no doubt as they grow up they will be conscribed according to the rules of that country. In all such cases it is the law of the particular foreign country which will apply to the children.

All over Europe, with a few exceptions, the law applicable to a person who resides in that country is their national law. They have abandoned on the Continent the notion of domicile which we have now in determining the law applicable to individual people, and the national law will apply. Therefore you have got the mother who is an alien, who has to follow all the rules of the foreign country, who no doubt has to make periodical visits to the police, who is liable at any time to comply with any rules that apply to foreigners, who in the case of the country being in a state of unrest may be open to being sent under duress to some place for fear that she should turn out to be a British spy, and who will be subjected to insults by the people in whose country she is living if it so happens that England is then hated—as happens too often—by the inhabitants of the country. In the event of war between that country and another—not only Britain but a neighbouring country—she becomes an alien and possibly an enemy alien. She has been an alien all the time, so I ought not to have said that, but she is treated as a foreigner, and is liable therefore to restrictive measures being taken by the Government of that country.

Those things have to be considered. I do not profess to be an expert on the subject, but I confess I have a strong impression that women who have married foreigners and gone to live abroad would tell you that their lives would be a constant misery in practice unless they had the nationality of their husbands. I know such women, but only a few of course. That is my firm conviction, and it would be a terrible mistake if this House plumped for the idea that the women would be happier if they had some nationality other than that of their husbands. I would add a word about women who live here and are going to marry foreign men whose domicile is going to be here. If my noble friend Viscount Samuel were to say that all he desires is that a woman can retain her British nationality in the event of marrying a man who intends to live here and who therefore desires that his wife should retain British nationality, then I should say in that case it is only reasonable that that should be so.

My noble friend has mentioned some very exceptional cases. You cannot legislate for the very exceptional cases. There was a very remarkable case of an Austrian woman apparently with a very bad character who married an Englishman. That may be so, and she of course ought not to have been able to get British nationality. But cases of that kind are so rare—I do not suppose there are half a dozen of them in a century—that that is not a ground upon which the law can be altered. I am strongly of the opinion that in the case I am considering there is an overwhelming ground on which the women would wish to obtain the nationality of their husbands.

I would observe this—and this is I think the last matter upon which I wish to detain your Lordships—that at the very beginning of the marriage in many cases the married woman would be refused entry into the foreign country, except with a great deal of trouble, bother and delay. Who of us here is going to say that an English woman, retaining her British nationality and going to one of the countries which happens now to be beyond the iron curtain, is going to be admitted into that country? I doubt it very much. If she has retained her British nationality, I think the authorities would be extremely likely to say: "Well, you cannot come in; you should have thought of that before you married. You wish to come here in a country where access of aliens is not allowed except under very special circumstances and on special grounds, and in those circumstances we are very sorry for you, but you had better take the next boat back to your own country." That is a remark which I believe may apply in places in addition to those beyond the iron curtain. I am not at all sure that there are not other countries where there are difficulties.

I have not been able, in the time at my disposal, to look up the law of the United States which my noble friend has said was passed in the year 1922. I expect that as usual he was quite right. My present belief is that their rules as regards the admission of foreign women who have married American subjects and who have retained their British nationality from our point of view are anomalous. I would not be at all surprised to hear that in that country, or in some other countries in the world, it is a matter of the greatest difficulty for a foreigner who remains a foreigner, though married to an American citizen, to be allowed in. Would such a woman be included in the quota? Would she have to go through all that is laid down in the burdensome regulations which we know apply to aliens in that country, and would not considerations of that sort apply to other countries as well? There are, I think, very great difficulties with regard to such cases. I do not intend to delay your Lordships by going through the various proceedings of the Conventions which have taken place, but I do think something that is recorded concerning the last Imperial Conference which took place in 1930 is worth mentioning. I will read a passage from the summary of the proceedings, page 22. This is a unanimous report from a most eminent body of people. The paragraph to which I refer states: Careful consideration was given to the subject of the nationality of married women. All the members of the Commonwealth represented at The Hague Conference of 1930 signed the Nationality Convention there concluded, and will it is assumed introduce such legislation as may be necessary to give effect to Articles 8–10 of that Convention. The Conference was satisfied however that any proposals for the further modification of the principle of the existing law would fail to secure unanimous agreement. It followed that the Conference was unable to make any recommendation for the substantive amendment of the law on this subject except to the extent stated above. The text of the articles referred to, Articles 8–10 of the Nationality Convention, are set out, but I will not read them; they have become part of our law. I agree that there was shown to be a very considerable majority in favour of a general rule, but it would be necessary to consider this matter very carefully. I doubt very much whether it would be wise to introduce legislation which has not the unanimous approval of the Commonwealth. The noble Viscount, Lord Sankey, in a long and elaborate speech on behalf of the Government, to which my noble friend has referred, attributed enormous weight to the fact that the Dominions had different views. They may have changed their views, and as I have said before I do not object in the least to an inquiry. Opinions certainly do change on matters of this sort and it is possible that there will be nothing to prevent our legislating now partially on the lines that the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, proposes. But I hold the strong opinion with regard to women who are marrying with the intention of residing abroad, that it would be found on inquiry—and I venture to prophesy that this would be so—that it is not in the interests of those women, though it may very well be in the interests of women who hope and intend to live here, that they should retain their British nationality.

3.25 p.m.

LORD MARLEY

My Lords, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has said, I spoke in 1938 on behalf of the Opposition, in support of the general principles to which the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has referred, and I desire now to reiterate my support for legislative proposals along those lines. I may say that while I have not personally consulted any member of the Government Front Bench on this matter, I have no doubt in my own mind that the Government to-day will be even more strongly in favour of the principles which I supported on behalf of the Opposition so many years ago. The speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was, I thought, extraordinarily lucid and extremely sympathetic. It is rather surprising that the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, should have missed so much of the intentions behind Viscount Samuel's speech. The simple problem of a British woman marrying abroad is covered by the declaration of intention. In other words, if she desires to be a citizen of another country she can become so, under Viscount Samuel's suggestion. If she does not so desire she could, under this suggestion, remain British. The noble Viscount, Lord Maugham, it seemed to me, was also amazingly uninformed about the position in the United States of America which, in point of fact, is extremely anomalous, because a British woman marrying a United States citizen loses her British nationality, but she does not thereby attain United States nationality without a certain delay and the carrying out of a certain series of actions. These include a declaration of intention, of desire, and the United States authorities grant a reduction in the time which it is necessary for anybody to live in the United States before becoming a citizen of that country, to only one year. But in that one year there may well be considerable difficulties, for, as I understand the matter, the wife of the American is during that time without a nationality.

I would like rather to emphasize the problem of foreign women marrying British subjects. It became quite serious after the rise of Hitler in Germany, because the German racial doctrine is that "Once a German always a German," with all German loyalties, even though Great Britain may give British citizenship to a German woman marrying a British subject. This caused very considerable difficulties during the war and is now likely to cause greater difficulties in the peace because throughout the world there are splits in many of the countries in regard to the type of Government recognized. Accordingly, this country is tending to become a haven of refuge for dissident elements, who use it as a centre for attempting to undermine the existing Government in the country from which they came. We have, for example, General Anders making speeches to non-supporters of the present Polish Government, urging them at all costs and all their life to fight against the existing Government and attempt to secure its overthrow. A Polish woman supporting that idea as a British subject becomes a potential stirrer-up of war. We know of Hungarian subjects doing the same sort of thing. There may well be Greek cases; there may well be similar cases amongst Lithuanians and Rumanians. Under the existing law, there is the possibility that they may all become potential causes of another world war.

There is one other point I. desire to mention. We have heard about the Dominions, and that they have been an obstacle to legislation in this country in the past. But during the war both New Zealand and Australia recognized the difficulties of the old position, and have now modified their legislation very much along the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. The Union of South Africa, moreover, is considering this matter with a new sympathy, and the Dominion of Canada only four weeks ago passed into law the Dominion Act—an Act respecting citizenship, nationality, naturalization and the status of aliens. That was on May 16 this year, and the Secretary of State in the Canadian Parliament, speaking on this Act, used these words: On the subject of naturalization, I might mention one change that is important throughout the Bill. In the past a married woman has been classed with minors, lunatics and idiots, as persons under a disability. They could not become naturalized or control their national status as independent persons, except in very special circumstances. The Government look upon this as an anachronism that has no place today. All disabilities for married women have been eliminated in the present Bill. The Act is of particular interest because the Canadian Government have classed foreign wives who marry Canadians simply as human beings. It seems odd that we have not got that far yet! All that is necessary for such women to acquire Canadian citizenship is that they should follow a few very simple rules. The woman must, first of all, be the wife of a Canadian, or she must declare her desire to be a Canadian citizen. She must have been lawfully admitted into Canada—that deals, of course, with people who smuggle themselves into the country. She must have had continuous residence for one year. She must be of good character—whatever that means. She must have a good knowledge of English or French (because Canada is bilingual), she must realize the responsibilities and privileges of Canadian citizenship, and she must intend to remain in Canada. These simple rules seem to be a not unreasonable guide to legislation in this country in the future. The adoption of some similar rules would have the valuable effect of knitting more closely the various elements in the British Commonwealth of Nations, because we alone, of all the elements in that great Commonwealth, are lagging behind in legislative activities of this sort. I do trust that this Government will have the desire to promote legislation and will find time, when the opportunity comes, to bring into force something along the lines the noble Viscount has suggested.

3.35 p.m.

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

My Lords, I desire to support in the fewest possible words the argument of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I thought my noble friend made his case so abundantly clear that hardly any of your Lordships could fail to find it completely convincing. I am very happy to think that there was nothing really contradictory to the thesis of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, in the argument put forward by the noble Viscount, Lord Maugham. I did not in the least understand the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, to be advancing the proposal that every British woman on marrying a foreigner should be irrevocably committed to retaining British citizenship. Of course, the obvious solution to this great difficulty is to treat the woman as an adult, and let her make up her own mind. Having been in favour of this reform, and having been known to be in favour of it for a good many years, I have had brought to my notice literally hundreds of cases where there has been acute and extreme hardship on British women.

On the converse side, the noble Viscount quoted a case which is extreme and unusual, but that does not alter the fact that there have been hundreds of cases of gross abuse. This is not only a case of hardship to individuals, but a case of great injustice that has enured, contrary to the national interest. I earnestly hope that the Government, to prove how superior they are to all previous Governments, who have been afraid to tackle the subject, will say that they can carry out this great reform.

3.37 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I have no doubt that this Government will very soon prove that they are superior to any previous Government. I hope, when that proof is forthcoming, that the noble Lord will recognize the fact, and will enrol himself among our followers. For myself, I say quite frankly that I could wish that this debate had been postponed—even for a few days or a few weeks. But the noble Viscount, who was perfectly entitled to move this Motion if he wished to do so, desired to bring it on, and I can well understand his desire to raise a question and to ventilate a subject which needs ventilation periodically. On the other hand, the noble Viscount knows, and your Lordships know quite well, that this matter has come up at a recent meeting of Dominion Premiers. Indeed, the noble Viscount has told us that it was raised by the Dominion Premiers themselves. I am quite sure that the noble Viscount who moved this Motion would agree with the noble. Viscount, Lord Maugham, that it is better that we should have Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand to support us in our proposals than that we alone should bring in proposals.

As a result of the deliberations at the Dominion Prime Ministers' meeting, a committee of experts was set up. The experts have reported to their Governments, and the Governments are now in process of communicating with each other. Had this debate been postponed for quite a short time, I might have had something to say to your Lordships. Instead, if I butt in at this rather delicate moment I am much more likely to do harm than good. Therefore, with the greatest respect, I propose to say nothing at all. I do say—if I may not be guilty of an indiscretion—that speaking personally I find myself in complete sympathy with what the noble Viscount has said. On the other hand, I think that there, is another factor of the utmost importance, and that is from the point of view of the Dominions. The concept that there is some common status which is applicable to all members of His Majesty's Dominions is a concept of immense importance. It is one thing for any one Dominion to pass laws governing its own territory and concerning local rights or, if you will, even concerning local citizenship, but the idea of having some common status which operates throughout the Dominions is just one of those things which hold us together and which I would be most reluctant to lose.

If an alteration in the law should be decided upon I want to see it made with the consent not only of this country but of all the Dominions, and I am not without hope that something on those lines may eventuate. But, for the reasons I have given your Lordships, I cannot say anything more about it to-day. Possibly in a few weeks or a few months, there may be an opportunity to make a further statement. The noble Viscount knows that, although there has been a long delay in this matter, things are now stirring and, in the interests which he has at heart, I think he will understand my not replying more fully.

3.43 p.m.

VISCOUNT SAMUEL

My Lords, I do not take umbrage at all at the attitude taken by the Lord Chancellor, which was in fact what I anticipated, because I was well aware of the fact that these negotiations are now proceeding. I entirely share the Lord Chancellor's view—indeed I expressed the same view—that the maintenance of uniformity throughout the Commonwealth, so far as is possible, is most desirable. At the same time the reason why I did not postpone my Motion was simply that the matter had dragged on for so many years, and a deputation which I had the pleasure of introducing to the Home Secretary some months ago represented all those matters and we were told that before long something would be done. Nevertheless, further months have gone by and nothing has in fact been accomplished. And, after all, debates in your Lordships' House are useful not only because they are occasions upon which the Government may make statements as to their intentions or as to their actions, but also because they are opportunities in which your Lordships can express your own views with a view to bringing pressure to bear if necessary and, it may be, strengthening the hands of the Government in any negotiations in which they may be engaged with other parties.

For those reasons I do not think that your Lordships' time has been wasted to-day by re-stating this case, bringing it up to date, and enabling the Government and the public to realize that this matter is being watched. So far as the speeches in your Lordships' House are concerned, all of them are in favour of the main principle which is being advocated. In those circumstances, I do not in any way demur to what the Lord Chancellor has said. On the contrary, I thank him for the tone of his observations and the indication of his own hope that something definite may be accomplished. I was a little sorry that, after suggesting that it might be a matter of weeks, he afterwards said perhaps months, and I am somewhat anxious that it may not prove to be years. However, that remains to be seen. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.