BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 21 June 1948)

HL Deb 21 June 1948 vol 156 cc992-1083 992

§ 4.7 p.m.

§ Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Motion agreed to.

§ House in Committee accordingly:

§ [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

§ Clause 1:

§ British nationality by virtue of citizenship.

§ 1.—(1) Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in the next following subsection is a citizen of that country shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject.

§ (2) The following are the countries hereinbefore referred to, that is to say, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Newfoundland, India, Pakistan, Southern Rhodesia and Ceylon.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to leave out subsection (1) and to insert: Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and 993 Colonies or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject. The noble Lord said: Since this is a complicated and very far-reaching Bill, it may be desirable that I should begin by explaining the purpose and effect of my Amendment.

§ As your Lordships will remember from the discussion on Second Reading, the Bill effects a fundamental change in the description of members of the British Commonwealth. Hitherto—or at any rare until two years ago—"British subject" was the name of every one of the King's lieges throughout the world; as the Lord Chancellor explained, there was a common code; upon the subject, and there were no classes, sub-divisions or species within that world-wide title. Two years ago, for good reasons of their own, with which we in this House, naturally, have no quarrel whatever, the Canadian Government decided to establish a special Canadian citizenship. They decided that those who were Canadian citizens should also be British subjects. The creation of a special species within the broad genus of British subjects led to a certain lack of uniformity and tidiness throughout the Commonwealth, and there followed a conference of experts to see whether the difficulties thus created could be removed. The conference of experts met and decided, I believe by general agreement—all the Dominions being represented except India and Pakistan, who were not at that time separate Dominions—that in future "British subject" (as, again, the Lord Chancellor clearly explained) should be the name of the genus throughout the Commonwealth, and that within that genus there should be various citizenships—Canadian citizenship, Australian citizenship and, in our case, citizenship of an entirely new political and geographical entity, known as "the United Kingdom and Colonies."

§ So far as we are concerned, we do not wish in any form to question the way in which the agreement was arrived at with the rest of the Commonwealth in regard to the general structure of this Bill. We understand that there is a clear agreement upon that subject, and we should hesitate to take any action which implied a difference of opinion on that subject between this country and the Dominions. 994 So far as I know, there is none. But in creating a new citizenship of an entirely new geographical and political entity, known as "the United Kingdom and Colonies," the Bill does something which is subject purely to the jurisdiction of this United Kingdom Parliament. It is a matter in which we are responsible, and in which nobody shares our responsibility. This Parliament, therefore, must look at this new proposal seriously and soberly.

§ On Second Reading some of us in this House expressed our dislike of this new citizenship, and, indeed, considerable anxiety about many of its implications and possible repercussions. We have given further earnest and careful consideration to it, and that has not in any way modified the objections which we then expressed. On the contrary, further consideration has strengthened and deepened our objections. Since the Second Reading, we have had many conferences with members of His Majesty's Government, with the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, with tie noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and with the Home Secretary. We are most grateful to noble Lords opposite and to the Home Secretary for the time they gave to joint consideration of the subject with us, and I wish that we had been able to agree. I regret only one thing about those conferences, and that was the absence of the Colonial Secretary. We mentioned that we thought that this matter was of considerable importance to his Department, but apart from hearing indirectly their opinions we had no representations from that Department.

§ Despite those repeated discussions, which occupied us for several hours, we remain totally unconvinced and we feel it an imperative duty to move this Amendment. Let me briefly explain to your Lordships what the Amendment does. In place of subsection (1) of Clause 1, where the Bill says: Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies… we wish to substitute the words: Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies… thereby making the term "British subject" descriptive of His Majesty's lieges, as of old, throughout the United Kingdom and the Colonies, with this distinction: 995 that, if necessary, they may have a territorial affiliation as British subjects in the United Kingdom and Colonies. The other consequent changes are many, but the only important one, I think, would be in the title of Part II, and in Clause 4. Instead of "Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies," the title should, we suggest, read: "Status of a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and the sub-title "Citizenship by birth or descent" would become "Status by birth or descent," and so on. There are many other consequential Amendments, but they all take the same form of substituting the term "British subject" for the term "citizen"

§ Let me, as briefly as I can, give your Lordships the reasons why we feel so strongly upon this question of nomenclature. In the first place, citizenship appears to us in this context to be an inappropriate and unhistorical term. It is inconsistent with the facts of the Colonial Empire and I think in many ways it must be repugnant to sentiment both here and there. After all, the word in its proper sense implies the common enjoyment of equal civic rights and the acceptance of equal civic responsibilities; that is the meaning of the word "citizenship" It may be applied to great cities or to great countries, such as France and the United States of America. In its historical context this term of "citizen," at any rate in those countries, is republican. On the other hand, John Gilpin, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon reminded us the other day, was "a citizen of famous London Town"; and we confer the freedom of cities upon distinguished members of our race. But in regard to countries, citizenship hitherto has had a distinctly republican flavour.

§ Apart from that, however, it is obviously a term that is quite applicable for the purposes for which it has been used by Canada and may be used by other Dominions. Canada, Australia and New Zealand are, after all, single geographical entities under one system of government, under which every member of the community has equal rights and responsibilities. But citizenship in that sense is obviously entirely inapplicable to a vast range of territories such as we have to deal with in the Colonial Empire and to an immense variety of peoples who 996 range in their standard of civilisation and of civic responsibility from the head-hunters of Borneo to noble Lords opposite. There is a very wide range within this single term of "citizenship," and obviously there are great differences in that range in the sense of civic rights and civic responsibilities. There are also immense varieties of Governments and of rights and responsibilities, varying from universal adult franchise, as we have it here, to no franchise at all. All those variations would be brought together under the term "citizenship." In fact, to cover the Colonial Empire the term "citizenship" must be wrenched from its proper significance. It can be defended, if it is to be defended—and this is what we dislike and wish to avoid—only as a convenient legal fiction. We dislike the fiction and we see no good reason for it. For that reason alone—the history and the proper meaning of the term—we would like to see it altered in the Bill so far as the United Kingdom and Colonies are concerned.

§ In the second place, we believe that the use of this term for the United Kingdom and Colonies may have very undesirable political repercussions. Although this Parliament is, of course, still supreme throughout the Colonial Empire, nevertheless, as everybody who has lived and lives in the Colonial Empire knows, there is in the Colonial Empire a universal dislike of Whitehall government. There is a universal desire to feel that they are not dominated by a distant Legislature and administration but that, in fact, they are able more or less to conduct their own affairs without remote control. That has always been the history of the Dominions since the days when an early settler in New Zealand said that he would rather be governed by Nero on the spot than by a committee of archangels in Downing Street. That feeling is just as strong in the Colonial Empire. We have been trying to recognise that in every respect. In various ways we have been preparing and even carrying out systems of decentralisation and of regional organisation which will give more authority to those who are responsible on the spot. While, of course, there are in the Colonial Empire at the present time old Colonies with ancient Legislatures—and do not let us forget that—to whom this term will appear curiously inappropriate, the Colonies are all moving the same way. 997 Therefore, while this term "citizenship" when used in the Dominions will have an increasing significance as the Dominions grew in stature and in power, in the United Kingdom and Colonies it would have a steadily decreasing and ultimately shing significance.

§ There is no such difficulty if we remain faithful to the old term of "British subject." That term has covered every variety of subject under every variety of Government. In is appropriate to them all, and they are proud of it. We would much prefer that no suggestion were made in this. Bill or in any other way that we are seeking to tie the Colonial Empire more closely to this country, to make it more dependent upon this country or in any way to interfere with the individual development of Colonies or groups of Colonies.

§ In the third place, there is another objection which is also deeply felt upon these Benches, and that is that the establishment of the term "citizenship" in many Colonies would be a fertile ground for political agitators. Our effort now, certainly in the African Colonies and elsewhere, is to try to give priority and emphasis to economic development and to avoid the danger that that development may be outstripped and impeded by premature political agitation. The noble Lord, Lord Milverton, called attention to that danger in a remarkable speech not many weeks ago. "Citizenship," after all, ought to mean, and in its proper sense does mean, equal rights and responsibilities. Do noble Lords opposite really suppose that, if that term is used in regard to the Colonial Empire, it will not be exploited against us by every malcontent, by every political agitator? It is a poor answer to say that after all the term is merely a legal fiction. That would be the truth but, as I say, it would be a poor answer. I am afraid that it would furnish the Soviets, in their propaganda against the Empire, with another text for their constant theme of the "crude and callous insincerity of British Imperialism."

§ I also feel, as I think most of us must feel, that the term "citizenship" is inconsistent with what constitutes the true basis of loyalty in the Colonial Empire. After all, the allegiance of the King's subjects within the Colonial Empire is not to any political system; it is quite simply to the King in person. That is what they feel. 998 I spent five years of my life in Africa and I know how strong that sentiment is throughout the African Colonies. I do not believe that any noble Lord who has experience of this matter can doubt the truth of that statement. The Colonial troops who fought so magnificently during the Second World War fought as subjects of the King. They fought for the King, and they believed that they were fighting for the King. They understand that; but allegiance to a political system is something which means absolutely nothing to them. Why, then, sacrifice a title, the title of "British subject," which millions have been and are to-day proud to bear and under which millions also have fought and died for their Sovereign?

§ Finally—and here I come to broader ground—we on these Benches would lament any tendency to differentiate between different types of British subjects in the United Kingdom. Hitherto, it has been our proud boast that all British subjects have equal rights in the United Kingdom. Whatever you may say at the outset, if you create a distinctive citizenship it is bound to set up a tendency towards differentiation. This is a metropolitan country, the greatest in the world, the greatest and most liberal in all history. I think it must maintain its ancient metropolitan tradition and maintain the names, titles and terminology which for generations have been associated with that great liberal tradition. For all these reasons, we feel strongly the necessity for this Amendment.

§ On the Second Reading, when I ventured to use some of the arguments which I have been using to-day, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor made two answers. He said, in the first place, that Clause 1 was the subject of an agreement with the Dominions and that it would be very inconvenient and undesirable to seek to alter it. We recognise that to the full, but, after all, the Government themselves, by the Lord Chancellor's Amendment which follows mine, have altered or are going to alter the terminology of this important first clause. If one Amendment is already accepted, then we suggest that another Amendment cannot be impracticable, particularly as this Amendment applies solely to the jurisdiction and responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. The Dominions are supreme in their own spheres; this Parlia- 999 ment must be equally supreme in its own sphere. That sphere is an immensely wide one with far-reaching world-wide responsibilities. The Amendment that I suggest would make one, and only one, difference to the Dominions. Under the clause as it stands, they would all have to set up a citizenship. Under the clause as amended, it would be as open to them—as it would be to us—if they preferred it, to call themselves British subjects with territorial affiliation—British subjects of New Zealand, or British subjects of Australia; and we are not at all sure that some Dominions would not welcome this extension of choice in Clause 1.

§ In replying to me the Lord Chancellor argued, in the second place, that under the principle of the Bill the King's lieges must have a citizenship in order to become British subjects. I think he used words to this effect: that the entrance to British subject hood would be through citizenship. I think I have quoted him correctly. But that argument also has been put out of court by what has happened in the meantime, and by the Lord Chancellor's own Amendment. In the second Amendment on the Order Paper to-day, he is moving that the term "citizen" shall be used not only for the species but also for the genus; there will be citizens of the different countries of the Commonwealth and also a Commonwealth citizen. If you are prepared to blur the word "citizen," you cannot possibly base your case on tidiness; I venture, therefore, to say that that argument also is now out of court. In any case I should hesitate to rely too much in this Commonwealth upon tidiness. This Empire has always been an untidy Empire, and I think that is the chief reason why it still exists. Let us not rely too much on logic, for I verily believe that that would spell the decadence and demise of our greatest asset—namely, the practical political wisdom of our race.

§ I may add that the Amendment is supported by a wide consensus of experienced opinion. We have two ex-Colonial Secretaries upon these Benches and more than one member who, like myself, has been for many years in the Colonial Empire; and I think there is absolutely no difference of opinion about the arguments which I have used in moving this Amendment. Noble Lords opposite will realise that there is no question of Party in 1000 this. The country is almost unaware of the existence of this Bill, and certainly totally unaware of its profound significance. The responsibility, therefore, rests on Parliament and, in the first instance, on this House in which this Bill has already been given a First and Second Reading. We all want to do the right thing in this matter and, in deciding for or against this new citizenship, we shall be taking what I verily believe to be a momentous decision. I hope that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, and other noble Lords opposite, still have an open mind upon this question, and I hope, therefore, they will be prepared to give this Amendment further consideration. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Altrincham.)

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I do not wish to intervene at any length but I feel very strongly on the points which have been raised this afternoon. My noble friend Lord Altrincham has put the case for the adoption of his Amendment clearly, lucidly and emphatically. I myself have spent a good deal of time in the Colonies, and I know how strongly the natives feel with regard to their position as British subjects. I understand that under the Bill as it is now worded, they will, in the first instance, be citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and subsequently they will be regarded as British subjects. In every school in our Colonies the natives are taught, first of all, as my noble friend has said, their allegiance to the King; but secondly, and perhaps primarily, they are taught that they are British subjects and that, in the light of their being British subjects, they owe this allegiance to the King. What is to happen in the future if this Bill passes as it now stands? Are they to be taught in their schools, first that they are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and, subsequently and as a result, that they are British subjects? Can you believe in natives understanding this dual form of subjection to the King? I cannot; I cannot believe it is possible.
I remember a story which illustrates what I have in mind and which was told me a few years ago by a friend who was visiting New York. He went up to bed one evening in his hotel, and the elevator 1001 man was coloured "as black as your hat." When my friend reached his floor he left the elevator and the man looked at him and said: "Sah, we two are the only, darned Britishers in this hotel." That showed what emphasis he laid on the fact that he was a Britisher and that he was a British subject. Can you imagine, in the future, the same man saying: "Sah, we are the only two citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and British subjects living in this hotel"?
I do not think such a change is fair or necessary. As my noble friend has said, the Dominions may wish to be treated on a separate basis; I understand from what the noble and learned Viscount said upon the Second Reading, that the Government have been in consultation with the Dominions upon this matter, and that the Dominions have expressed a wish to be treated differently. But I do not for a moment see why, because the Dominions, who are self-governing and supreme in their own countries, desire a change by reason of the development in these days of strong nationality in places like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and so on, it should be necessary to apply that to our Colonies, which have not reached that stage of development and have not the desire for this change. I am quite certain that if the natives could be canvassed on this subject, they would one and all say that they preferred to remain British subjects, as they had always been, and as they hoped to be in the future. I hope the Government will take a serious view of the very clear case that has been put before the Committee by my noble friend in regard to this matter, and will find themselves able to accept his Amendment.

§ 4.40 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)
I must say that I am astounded at some of the arguments which have been used in regard to this matter. Let me start by saying that this is in no sense a Party matter, because I hope and believe that we all, to whatever Party we belong, regard the British Empire and Commonwealth as the greatest institution which British genius has ever developed. And it would be a very evil day if any of us were to do anything to attempt to weaken or destroy it. We start with that. Therefore, the whole problem is: What is the right thing to do under these circum- 1002 stances? Of course, this Government are supreme as to any legislation passed here; we can pass any legislation we like. But the question, in this connection, is not as to our powers but what it is wise and discreet for us to do.
Now let me reveal some of the circumstances. If you believe, as I believe, and as I think we all believe, that it is important to keep the conception of a common family—which applies to the British Empire and Commonwealth, and which does not apply even to our very good friends of the Western Union; it is something peculiar, this family relationship—you have to consider how to preserve it. Up till comparatively recently, we tried to preserve it by having common Statutes, common rules as to nationality. In the year 1930, in the Imperial Conference, and again in the Imperial Conference of 1937, consideration was given as to the way in which we could preserve it, and I think we all felt that it was desirable, so long as there was a common code, to continue that method. But both those Conferences accepted an alternative method—namely, that each member State of the Commonwealth might enact by its own laws who should be its citizens and let the sum total of those citizens constitute British subjects. That is the alternative. That was the position discussed and canvassed at those two Conferences.
In 1945—like the noble Lord opposite I emphasise that we must be certain that we make no sort of complaint; it is entirely a matter for Canada to decide—Canada passed a law whereby she broke away from the common code position. She determined for reasons of her own—no doubt perfectly good ones—to enact a new principle of Canadian citizenship. After setting out what her citizenship is, how it is to be gained and how it may be lost, the Canadian Citizenship Act by Section 26 states that: A Canadian citizen is a British subject. That was what I meant when I spoke of the distinction between species and genus. That is the principle I want to apply quite generally. As your Lordships will remember, a meeting of the Prime Ministers was held here in London in May, 1946. This matter was canvassed, and there was a general expression of views in favour of changing over to the Canadian system. 1003 The matter was then remitted to a conference of experts to consider it in detail. That conference met in February, 1947. Their work extended from February 3 to February 26, 1947. Though, of course, the conference was a committee of experts, it is obvious that in making this agreement the experts were in touch with their various Governments and with the High Commissioners, several of whom were there.
You must not, therefore, regard this as merely an expression of agreement by a few legal experts. Canada was represented at the Conference. Her first representative was the High Commissioner in London. The Under-Secretary of State for Canada attended, as also did a representative of the Department of External Affairs and a representative of the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada. A representative of the Office of the High Commissioner in London was Secretary to the delegation. Australia was represented by distinguished people—the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Immigration was one, and there was also another representative. New Zealand had two representatives; the Union of South Africa had three; Eire had five. The High Commissioner for India attended the first meeting. As the noble Lord has rightly said, India had not then achieved the status of a Dominion, and arrangements were made to keep the Government of India in touch with all the proceedings: Newfoundland was represented; Southern Rhodesia sent her Attorney-General. Ceylon, too, was represented. That meeting of those distinguished delegates came to an agreement to recommend this clause to their various Governments. Though that, of course, is not a contract, in the sense that we have a binding contract that the various Governments shall introduce this legislation, I believe, and I think we have every reason to hope, that so long as we adhere to this clause, the various member States of the British Commonwealth and Empire will enact legislation, either in these words or at least to this effect—I hope in these very words.
The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, proposes to change these words. Even if I thought that his words were better than ours, I should think it a great misfortune to adopt them. I should, moreover, consider it a great misfortune that we did not 1004 have him available to give us his bright ideas at the time. Even if I thought his words were better than ours, I should be reluctant, having regard to what took place, to make the alteration now. As I think that his words are much worse than ours, I am quite definite that we cannot accept this Amendment. Why do I think that they are worse? First, because it is a complete misapprehension to think that the various subjects of the King in our Colonies will cease to be British subjects. Of course they will not. They will remain British subjects. Their duty and their allegiance to the King will be just exactly what it was, and I hope they will be taught that. Neither is it necessary to imagine difficulties arising on the spot or that this will be a fertile ground for agitation.
The noble Lord opposite did not see the Colonial Secretary; we failed to get him to our meetings. If the noble Lord had seen the Colonial Secretary he would know that he is insistent on having this clause. Every Governor of our Colonies has had this clause communicated to him, and not one has raised any objection. This clause is believed by the Colonial Office to be quite unexceptionable. In these circumstances, why should we alter it? See what it does. To my mind it has one vice: to use words "British subject," which is a term for the group, as being applicable to a section of the group, is a grave mistake. I will come in a moment to my Amendment. I say: Let us have this principle—species, citizenship; genus, British subjects. "Now," says the noble Lord, "you have weakened your argument; you have destroyed your argument. You yourself are amending this clause." True, I am amending this clause because certain Dominions have indicated to us that it is difficult for them to accept the words "British subject." It conveys to them some kind of overlordship, some kind of superiority. We were very anxious, if we could, to meet that point. Therefore, I have put down an Amendment.
The Amendment which I have put down has been agreed by all these other countries; all the member States of the British Empire and Commonwealth have agreed it. Therefore, it would be quite wrong to treat it as though I was proposing to amend an agreed clause by anything other than an agreed Amendment. That, 1005 I submit, makes a vital distinction. I ask your Lordships to consider whether you will say, "We are not going to have the citizenship which Canada and Australia and all these countries have." Consider, too, whether you are going to put us in some different position from them. I feel certain that if you do that, they will not honour this clause. If you put us on some different basis, then all this work will have been in vain. And what goes with it? This is a very serious matter. What goes with it is a conception of common nationality which extends throughout the British Empire and Commonwealth. I beg your Lordships to consider carefully before you throw overboard this agreement; because that is what you will be doing. The conception is that every member State makes its own laws for making its own citizens, and every citizen thereupon becomes, by virtue of being a citizen, a British subject.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
Will the noble and learned Viscount allow me a question? I am anxious to follow him but I do not follow the last argument at all. Is it not the fact that every person who lives and has his being in any Colony or Dependency of the British Empire is a British subject? I do not see what he means by saying that the principle goes with this clause. It is a thing that exists now. All the people in the five or six Dominions and the fifty Colonies, big and small, are British subjects, as I understand the law.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Of course; and they will remain British subjects.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I thought you said that they did not. I apologise.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That also seems to be the apprehension of the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. They remain British subjects. The only change is this. Whereas before we had a common code, broadly speaking—there were minor exceptions, and every country of the British Empire and Commonwealth had some code as to who became British subjects—all that is gone. The only way we can get the conception now is in this way. I know of no other way. Every member State makes what law it likes as to the species. The sum total of people is the genus "British subjects." If that 1006 is right, to be in the same position as the others we must constitute and create our citizenship. Every person who is now a British subject in the Colonies will become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and will remain a British subject, because, belonging to the species, they will now belong to the genus.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I do not quite see on that explanation what it is they are getting by this Bill. If they are born, say, in Australia, they are British subjects. They cannot help it.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
They get nothing and lose nothing by the Bill. I will try to explain it once again. We want to keep the conception of British subject—whatever yon may call him. We may not be happy about the phrase "Commonwealth citizen"; but we ought to keep the conception of British subject-hood. There are only two ways of doing that, and I challenge anybody to show me a third way. Either we have a common law which applies everywhere to define who British subjects are to be; or every member State can decide for itself who are to be its citizens, and then the sum total of all citizens become British subjects. There is no other possible way. The term "British subject" should be a term not applicable to the species, but applicable to the genus. It is a fact that some of the new Dominions, with, a history very different from our own, dislike the term "British subject." They dislike both words, and, to meet them, I have, with the agreement of all the others, invented a phrase "Commonwealth citizenship." Perhaps it is not a very happy phrase, because I am using the substantive "citizen" to apply to the genus and not merely to the species. But because I am doing that, there is no reason why I should make a worse mistake and use the words "British subject" as applying to a mere section instead of to the whole. That is why I must resist this Amendment.
This Bill does not differentiate between British subjects. It is within the competence of this Parliament and it is within the competence of any self-governing Parliament to differentiate. We can say that people who come from one part of the British Empire shall not be allowed in and people from another part shall be allowed in, but in this great 1007 metropolitan centre of the Empire I hope we never shall say such a thing; I hope we shall always extend to all British subjects the same rights and the same privileges as members of a family. But of course any member State of the Empire may do so or may not do so. This Bill, however, does not differentiate between any classes of British subjects. If here after it becomes necessary to do so, that case can be considered on its own merits. I know of no reason why it should ever become necessary to differentiate, and I hope it never will. Those who are British subjects to-day remain British subjects. Most of the Colonial people will not read this Bill, and I do not think they would understand much about it if they did. But they can be told that, as they are British subjects to-day and owe allegiance to the King, so they will remain. If they are persons interested in constitutional law, they will know that they will have an added status, as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and that this is the gateway through which they enter the central redoubt of British citizenhood.
I believe this Amendment to be worse than the one standing in my name. Having regard to the fact that our clause has been very carefully drafted by these distinguished people and carries with it, I believe, the complete assent and good will of the various member States, so long as this clause remains there is, I will not say a certainty, but at least a good prospect, of their enacting similar legislation. It would be a great mistake if, by reason of what I think is largely a misunderstanding, we threw overboard this opportunity to retain the idea of being members of a family, of being subjects of the King, of being British subjects. There is no substance whatever in all the remarks about "fertile ground for agitators," about the term "being exploited by agitators" and about our Russian friends "making the best of it" This is not a Party matter at all. I ask your Lordships to say that we are willing to take this opportunity of clinching what we have got from this agreement, and not, by reason of a misunderstanding, to jettison all the work that has been done.

§ 4.59 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has made a powerful speech, though I 1008 think that in one regard I shall have to ask him if his statement was really correct. I know that if it was not he will ascertain the fact and state it to the House. We all entirely agree that this is not a Party matter, and that it does not require to be discussed with great heat. Whilst we all agree that there can be nothing more important than taking the wisest step to preserve the unity of the British Commonwealth, it is still important to see whether the proposed phraseology of this clause is the best. With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, it is really a question of phraseology. I can quite understand the arguments which he has pressed, and which appeal to us all—that nothing is more important than so to legislate as to promote the unity of the Commonwealth. I do not quarrel about that at all. I am saying merely that it is such an important question that it is worth while quite calmly to consider which is the better form of words. One might almost think, from the way in which my noble friend Lord Altrincham has been criticised, that he was attempting in this Amendment to alter the essential scheme of the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
He is.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I hear a voice opposite saying "He is." If we have a copy of the Bill and the Amendment, and if we keep our heads, I think it is quite easy to see that that is not so. The essential scheme in Clause 1 is this: that you should take two phrases and say that anyone who satisfies either of the two phrases is by our law—because we are making laws only for our own country, in our Parliament—a British subject. I will read Clause 1 (1) as it appears in the Bill: Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdon and Colonies"— that is one class— or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in the next following subsection is a citizen of that country"— that is the second class— shall, by virtue of that citizenship, be a British subject. It is, therefore, a new way of defining what a British subject is. Is that the best way to express this idea?
1009 The Lord Chancellor did not happen to refer to this point, but of course it is well in his mind, and it is just as well to mention it now. If noble Lords will look at page 22 of the Bill they will see what enactments are repealed. The important enactment which is repealed is the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914. That is the Act (I happen to know it fairly well, for I was Attorney-General at the time it was passed) which provides that, so far as natural-born people are concerned—I leave out naturalisation—a British subject is any person born within His Majesty's Dominions and allegiance. That is the way in which in English law, from 1914 down to the present minute, we have defined a natural-born British subject. The proposal in this very important Bill is to repeal that Act. Instead, it is proposed to have the new subsection which I have ventured to read to the Committee, which ends, as your Lordships notice, by saying that persons in either of the two classes described shall be British subjects. It seems to me that the whole question for the Committee is whether the phraseology by which you describe the first of these two sorts of people is the best phraseology.
At present, the phraseology is: a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I think it must be admitted—though I have no doubt everybody has tried to think of something better—that that is not a very fortunate phrase. It is the view of many people who speak with authority—some of them because, amongst other things, they have been Colonial Secretary for many years; my noble friends Lord Salisbury and Lord Swinton are among them—that, in point of fact, that phraseology is very important; reasons have been given for that which I will not repeat. The proposal, and the only proposal, involved in this Amendment is to substitute a different phrase. What is proposed is that the clause should run—I read the subsection, if I may, as a whole: Every person who under this Act is a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies"— that is one class— or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in 1010 subsection (3) of this section is a British subject or citizen of that country shall thereby have the status of a British subject. May I respectfully point out to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that, so far as my information goes, it would not be correct to say (as he did in the course of his speech) that it was a citizenship which already existed by Statute in Australia, and already existed in New Zealand? No doubt the Lord Chancellor will quite easily be able to inform himself whether it is or is not the case that, let me say, New Zealand has ever passed any such law.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I am sure it has not.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I am sure it has not.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If I did say that I was certainly wrong. I meant to say the contrary. Certainly New Zealand has not; so far as I know, Australia has not; and, so far as I know, Canada alone has.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I think Eire has also. I can assure the Lord Chancellor that I am not making any small point. In his advocacy for the word "citizen," however, the Lord Chancellor did inform the Committee that both in Australia and New Zealand, such a citizenship at present existed. My information is rather different. My information is (this is only a speculation) that if New Zealand and if Australia were to carry out what is contemplated in this clause, it is likely that they will not enact anything about "New Zealand citizenship" or "Australian citizenship," but that they are quite likely to use words like "a British subject of New Zealand" or "a British subject of Australia." If they do that (would the Lord Chancellor be good enough to see whether he agrees?) I the present phraseology of the clause will prevent such people being British subjects here, because the two qualifications in the clause are, first, that a person is described as "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and, secondly, that a person, by legislation in force, say, in New Zealand, is "a citizen of that country."
Consequently, if either of these Dominions who have not enacted any- 1011 thing at all were to prefer to adopt the phrase "a British subject of New Zealand" or "a British subject of Australia", the language of this clause, so carefully considered, so elaborately discussed, would have a result which, of course, nobody would tolerate for a moment—namely, that, by our law, people who came from New Zealand and Australia were not British citizens at all. I ask the Government, very respectfully and in all humility—for they have studied this at greater length than I have had a chance of doing—just to consider that matter. I ask them to consider whether they will not have to put into this clause, in line 10, something which will provide for the case of an enactment, say, in Australia or New Zealand, that people there shall be "British subjects of New Zealand" or "British subjects of Australia."

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not know that; the noble and learned Viscount knows better than I do. All I can tell him is that the New Zealand representatives agreed this clause, and if they had been going to do what Lord Simon suggested, I cannot think they would have agreed the clause.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
Let us see what is involved. Are we to regard the language in this clause as sacrosanct, when it is quite obvious that we have either to insist on New Zealand adopting a particular form of words—which is a thing we would not dream of doing—or we have to leave it uncertain whether or not they will adopt it?
It does appear to me, therefore, that we are plainly engaged in choosing suitable nomenclature. The only thing I care about on this clause is that we should choose a nomenclature which will really fit the case. I have understood, ever since the Lord Chancellor explained it—although I did not understand it so well before his Second Reading speech—that the scheme is one which, first of all, creates what have been called various species (of which people in the United Kingdom and Colonies are one), and, secondly, says that those different species brought together shall constitute the genus, which we recognise by our law as British subjects. I understand that per- 1012 fectly, and nobody could have made it plainer than the noble and learned Viscount, both upon Second Reading and now. But the question is: Which is the better phrase to employ for the first of these species? I must say that I thought there was some force in the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, when he said that, in his view at least, to use a phrase like "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," was calculated to produce possible misunderstanding and trouble, which he believed would be avoided by using the phrase "British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies."
With sincere respect for the Lord Chancellor, I do not think that he is entitled to tell the House, with rather high language, that anybody who takes that view is manifestly engaged in perpetrating some evil to the British Empire. Not at all. This is a matter in which your Lordships will judge, and I hope that I have said nothing which claims any great authority for my personal opinion. I base it largely upon the fact that friends whom I know, and who have great experience in this subject, think it would be better. But it is for your Lordships to judge.
I would add this further point. I do most warmly agree with the Lord Chancellor in an observation he made near the end of his speech. Perhaps I may slightly expand it. In Canada, in Australia and, it may be, in some other areas which used to be called Dominions, they have an immigration law by which they can limit the movement into their country of people who are British subjects. To take the case of Canada, they admit without question anyone who is a Canadian citizen. But if the man who seeks to enter Canada is not a Canadian citizen—albeit he is a British subject—he is not at liberty to enter Canada unless he satisfies their immigration law; which means that a number of British citizens are kept out. I am not criticising. It may be a very natural course to take, especially with a young country which is anxious to secure that its inhabitants come up to a certain standard. But for us who, whatever may be said, constitute the centre of the whole, to have, which we have not at present, an immigration law which keeps out a man—or may keep him out because he is not, in a narrower sense, a British 1013 Citizen—is, I think, a thing which we should all deplore. I most warmly agree, if I may say so, with what the Lord Chancellor said on this. It is a fine thing; it is one of the finest things in the whole of our British Commonwealth, that anybody who is a British citizen knows that, without challenge or question, he will be admitted here, and that we reserve for aliens our powers of exclusion. I very much hope that we shall maintain that, although of course it means that we may have somebody come in whom it would be better to keep out.
If we once choose in Parliament to use this phrase, "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies," emphasising the point that it is citizenship that we are talking about—though I perfectly understand that it is meant only as one of the qualifications for the wider conception of British nationality—then I think it is certain that the day may come when people will say: "Oh, yes, citizens of the United Kingdom are not called upon to admit to this little island people who are British subjects but who come from other parts of the world." I do not want that to happen, and I want to set up every barrier against its happening. I believe it should be said: "If you are a British subject you are good enough for us."
For that reason, I would have preferred to use the new words. I have explained as clearly as I can—I trust without any language of temper or rhetoric—why it is that I am disposed to think that the words of the Amendment are to be preferred. In the end, it comes to a choice of which is the better way to express it. We are all standing on this footing: that, in view of the negotiations which have taken place—about which we have been more fully informed to-day than before—we agree that we form, together with the Colonies, a species, and that there will also be the Canadian species, the Australian species and so on. Let that be so. But I say, most respectfully, that I cannot think it is any part of the duty of the British Parliament to accept the direction that, under the law which we make for ourselves and for nobody else, we should use the word "citizen," and that offence is to be taken if we use the words "British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies." Equally with the other great members of the British Commonwealth, we have never sought for a moment to 1014 claim any superiority. We recognise that they have a perfect right to use the phraseology which they prefer. We agree with them that we could well constitute a species to which we will give an appropriate name. But that is where our duty ends, and I venture to think that we are certainly under no obligation to accept a phrase, if it is not the best phrase, to which legitimate objection is taken.
I must say one thing in conclusion. In his speech just now, the Lord Chancellor was good enough to give us a good deal of information about the conference which, to me at least, was quite new. I would remind the House that some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham—the noble Lord was absent himself, but I asked it on his behalf—put down a question to the Government, asking that they should give us all the information they could as to the extent and nature of this agreement. We were told: "Oh, that would involve communication with other parts of the Empire, and that cannot be done." I regret it very much. I have yet to learn that it is really the case that the Dominions, one and all, have pledged themselves to the use of the word "citizen." Nobody says so. I venture respectfully to ask whether it is really true that they have bound themselves to that. If they have not, the clause as drawn will not work; and that is further justification why we should, while agreeing to be a species, adopt as the title of that species the phrase which really suits the circumstances. I have endeavoured to explain how I regard the matter. I do not feel hot about it, but I am anxious that we should not be rushed into the adoption of a phrase which may not be the best, and that we should exercise our cool and calm judgment, in all the circumstances, in asking ourselves whether the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, is not right.

§ 5.22 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I wish to intervene for only two or three minutes. I think my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition feels that it is right that someone who has occupied the position of Colonial Secretary should explain to the House why both he and I, who have held that position, take the strongest view that the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Altrincham, should be accepted. The issue is, if I may say so, a short and simple one. It is simply, "What are we to call the people who inhabit this country and the 1015 British Colonial Empire?" Your Lordships may say "What's in a name?" With all the conviction at my command, I say that a great deal is in a name when you come to deal with the peoples of the Colonial Empire. I speak with experience at the Colonial Office, as my noble friend does, and I speak with the added experience of two years as Minister in West Africa in charge of the war effort. I say, without any doubt, that the idea of citizenship is one which never enters the minds of the inhabitants of the Colonies. They certainly do not regard themselves as citizens of the Colonial Empire. The man on the Gold Coast does not even regard himself as a citizen of the Gold Coast. The people of Nigeria, at any rate until the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, made his great reforms, certainly did not regard themselves as citizens of Nigeria. One of the reasons why I advised strongly against the unification, under a Governor-General, of the West African Colonies, was that there was really no such unity; the unity that exists throughout the Colonial Empire is that of common allegiance as common subjects of the King.
I do not know whether, in order to change the title, a Colonial Ordinance must be passed. If it must, it will have to be explained in every Colony. But I am quite sure that to change the title of these people from "British subjects" to "citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies" is merely asking for trouble in every Colony in the British Empire. I say that emphatically, because the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that that was a view which could not be held. It may not be the view of the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, but it is the emphatic view of my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, and myself. Why take the risk when Colonial administrators of some experience differ so strongly? Why is it necessary to do this? I say, with great submission, that it is not necessary at all to make the change. If the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, is carried, there will be nothing in the world to stop any one of the British Dominions from passing an Act of Parliament, if they so desire to call themselves Australian citizens, New Zealand citizens, South African citizens, and so forth. Whatever we put into this Act of Parliament could 1016 not prevent their doing so. The Canadians have already passed their Act of Parliament. My own view is that the Government would have been well advised to see what other Dominions do before they proceeded with this Bill. So far as the British Colonial Empire is concerned, this kind of housemaid's tidying up is unwise. You can prejudice nothing by accepting this Amendment, but you may run into untold difficulties in the Colonial Empire, at a somewhat difficult time if you do not accept it.

§ 5.26 p.m.

§ LORD MILVERTON
I should like to say a few words on this Bill, which is naturally of the greatest interest to a person with my past experience. I speak as one of the Colonial Governors who were consulted last year about the proposals in this Bill and who returned a hearty affirmative—which I understand was unanimous among my fellow Governors—to the terms of the Bill. I do not propose in any way to attempt to paint the lily by trying to make what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said even more clear, because I feel it was so crystal clear that there is nothing more to be said on the subject. What he said on the Second Reading and what he has said to-day seem to me to put the position beyond any further cavil. When I saw the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, proposed, I thought at first that it meant a fundamental change in the whole Bill. Then, after discussions with various noble Lords, I came to the conclusion that it was, as has been said to-day, a mere matter of a difference of opinion about words. It was only after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, this afternoon, and to one or two other speakers, that I realised that there was a great deal more than a mere quarrel about words.
I have not in any way changed my original opinion that the Bill as presented has the better wording. I should like to try to explain briefly why I think the Colonies would infinitely prefer that form of wording to the change now proposed. May I say in passing that in the course of this debate I have noticed that it has been tacitly assumed that the use of the term "the Colonies" means that about 60,000,000 people are involved in the provisions of this Bill? It is perhaps overlooked that only a small proportion of the 1017 people are British subjects. For instance, in the Colony of Nigeria, with a population of 23,000,000, there are fewer than 1,000,000 British subjects. The others are British-protected persons. It is quite true that under what are, to me, the excellent provisions of this Bill, clearly stated in the Third Schedule and towards the end of the Bill, it is possible for a British-protected person to assume the status of a British subject, almost by the payment of a mere five-shilling fee. It will be very easy for these people, if they wish, to get the status of a. British subject. That, in itself, I think, will be deeply appreciated throughout the Colonies. The noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, spoke of what is taught in the schools and of the pride which is felt by these people in being British subjects. That is indeed true. I suspect that at least some of the schools to which the noble Viscount referred were situated in protected territory, where they were not really British subjects at all. That is merely an illustration of the fact that, whether a man is a British subject or a British protected person in the Colonies, he is proud of his British connection, and does not know the difference between being a British subject and a British-protected person.
I was more than interested in, but somewhat alarmed by, what the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, said concerning the republican flavour of the term "citizen." That is opening a new view to me. I thought that citizenship was something of which we were proud—of whatever country we might be a citizen. The noble Lord then went on to say that giving the Colonies citizenship of the same kind as that of the United Kingdom was, at best, a piece of insincerity, because there were different responsibilities and different burdens. He implied that the Colonies could not assume full citizenship. I deprecate that view. I cannot see any difficulty in British subjects abroad being given the full status—whether or not that may imply more than they possess at present—of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. After all, surely the burdens of citizenship are largely geographical in their incidence. A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in England has undoubtedly very grave burdens of citizenship to assume. A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in, shall we say, Nigeria has much lighter responsibilities. It does not 1018 alter the fact that those responsibilities will apply to all citizens, of whatever colour or kind, in that particular geograpical location.
Further, I should like to say something about the hatred of Whitehall, the dislike of Whitehall by the Colonies. I was surprised to hear that that was a common feeling in the Colonies. In so far as I know it, this feeling has from time to time been relatively common amongst people like myself, and perhaps amongst the European officers of the Colonies; but I always thought that Whitehall was regarded as the chief defender and great protector of the people of the Colonies. In every Colony in which I have served, it has undoubtedly been the feeling that, whatever happened, whatever changes local government might bring about, they could always rely upon impartial justice in Whitehall. I am sure that there has been no change whatever in that position.

§ A NOBLE LORD: Downing Street!

§ LORD MILVERTON
It is true that loyalty to the Crown is the basis of our position in all the Colonies, so much so that I remember that, when King George VI came to the Throne and I was in Fiji, the Fijians welcomed the new Monarch and insisted upon having their own ceremony of installing the King there—by proxy, as it were—because they said "He is really the King of the Commonwealth, but we regard him as our particular King." So they had their own ceremony.
If I may be allowed to say so, with the greatest respect, I have throughout this debate felt that those references to the loyalty, which unquestionably is what binds the Empire together, have not much relevance, to the points with which we are concerned in this clause. I suggest that what we have at all costs to avoid is any impression in the Colonies that they are being given a different status from that which is considered the universal status throughout the rest of the Empire. It may be that their state of development, their standard of living and every other kind of standard, limp far behind those of the people of this country. But surely, in statements of Colonial policy, endorsed by every Party and every person in England, we have said that we aim at encouraging and 1019 helping them to rise—whether slowly or speedily—to the standard which will enable them to be self-governing units within this Empire. Surely, as an earnest of our good faith in that, we should admit them, gladly and freely, to citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and thereby confirm the impression which they certainly have at present, that they are regarded here as component parts of the citizenship of this country.
These people are now coming here constantly to study our systems of local government, and our ways of doing things. They are carrying back to the Colonies what they learn, in order that, with the help of British officers, they may apply their lessons there. I feel that it would be a pity to allow any idea that the new system involves a derogation from the position which a British subject has hitherto held to sway us at all in rejecting the wording of this clause. From the point of view of the Colonies, which seem to have provided the pivot for the consideration of this clause, I am confident that the wording as originally suggested will satisfy them and will not later be a subject for regret. We are not in any way changing the name of "British subject." We are merely defining the way in which the status of British subject is to be obtained in the future. Those Colonials who are capable of understanding the intricacies of a Bill like this will fully appreciate it. Those who are not—and they are the vast majority of Colonials, just as the vast majority of people in England will not understand these intricacies—will continue to be proud of being British subjects and will be quite oblivious of the way in which they obtain that status.

§ 5.39 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD
I should like to raise this one small point. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham. I think that his arguments in favour of this Amendment are very convincing. As I see it, the Lord Chancellor's main objection to it is that the clause as it stands was agreed at a conference last year, and that we might wreck the whole conception of it if we tried to alter it now. The noble and learned Viscount went on to say that he himself had proposed an Amendment to the clause but that that was not quite 1020 the same thing, since his Amendment had been agreed with the Dominion Governments. For the life of me, I do not see why this proposed Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, should not also be sent to other Governments for their views upon it. Surely that would be the sensible course to adopt. That is the point of the suggestion I should like to put forward.

§ 5.40 p.m.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I wish to detain your Lordships for only a very few moments. This is a very important matter and, as an excuse for my saying anything at all, it is a matter with which I have had to deal on more than one occasion—namely, the question of British nationality. I am afraid the first observation I want to make is only a repetition of what my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon, has said—that we are legislating here for this country only, and when we talk about providing for the people who are to be British subjects as a matter of law, we are dealing only with British subjects according to the laws of this Realm. Strictly in law, we have nothing to do with what other people would choose to call British subjects. It is our law and our rights that we are considering. That is a very practical matter, because in this country British subjects have certain rights of great importance. There are all sorts of smaller rights but the main one is the right of entry without a passport or a visa or anything of that sort—except of course, in times of war. There are these important rights in this Realm and on this land for which we are legislating here if we alter in any way the meaning of the phrase "according to our law." I do not believe anybody who lives either in the Colonies or in the Dominions objects in the least to our defining the laws under which people become British subjects and thereby receive these perfectly concrete rights. But we could very well discuss the question of the terms between now and a later stage if the words suggested in the present Amendment are not thought proper.
Now I want to take another point which, in a way, is one which I am justified in stating. It is a perfectly legal point on the construction of the clause as it is in the Bill, and on this part of the case Lord Altrincham's Amendment is to be preferred. Here we are 1021 defining how people become British subjects. In this clause we are stating the terms under which they become British subjects by law: Every person who under this Act is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies"— that makes him a British subject— or who under any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in the next following subsection"— that is subsection (2)— is a citizen of that country. As a lawyer, my complaint is that I do not know what the word "citizen" means; it is not denned. It is perfectly improper for it to indicate nationality. The people who are citizens of a country are, amongst others, those who have lived there most of their lives, who have a home there and have sent their children to school there—people who have a domicile, a permanent home, in that country. Those are "citizens" according to common parlance. But this word "citizen" is used here with a kind of meaning of "a national." It does not say so. I venture to say that never in any Act of Parliament has the word "citizen" been held to mean a national of a country. The citizens of London comprise many nationalities but they have never been thought necessarily to be British subjects. They are not necessarily nationals at all, and I suppose 10 per cent. of them are not nationals. Therefore this word is wholly inappropriate except as a new invention. I do not object to people inventing a new meaning for the word "citizen," but for heavens' sake let them define it!

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount? This Bill does define what citizens are. It uses the phrase "citizens under this Act," and then, from Clause 4 onwards, it defines what is a citizen, how citizenship is acquired, and so on.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I quite follow what the noble and learned Viscount says. I can repeat by heart nearly all these clauses, and I was not in the least unaware of that clause. But I maintain my statement that: "citizen" is not defined. Let us see what the Bill says. It says that a citizen or person "who under any enactment for the time being in force" (which may be fifty years hence), "is 1022 a citizen of that country"—that means one of fifty or it may be a larger number of countries—"shall…be a British subject." We have been told in the White Paper that the various countries mentioned in subsection (2) of Clause 1 are intending to pass Acts of Parliament in their own countries in which "citizen" will, no doubt, be defined. But, with all respect to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, I do not agree that that is a definition. That is putting off the definition to another time and to another country with different legislation.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, has suggested, with a good deal of common sense, that under the Bill as it stands there is a door through which a man may enter, in the first place, in order to be a British citizen. My comment is that the door may be of all sizes of all form, and at present it is absolutely unknown. I do not see how anybody can think that for instance, South Africa, Canada and Pakistan will all define what they mean by "citizen" in the same way. I am myself convinced that, left to themselves, they will produce a dozen different definitions of the word "citizen."

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Certainly.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
The noble and learned Viscount agrees. Then "citizen" is not defined, and what we are doing here—and I am sure the Lord Chancellor can follow the point I am making—is saying that the people who are to have rights as British subjects in this Realm are people whom we cannot describe at the present moment, and we do not know what conditions they will have to satisfy in order to obtain those rights.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
May I intervene again? Does the noble Viscount realise that this argument is equally destructive of Lord Altrincham's Amendment? He also has the phrase "citizen of that country."

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I am well aware of the Amendment; but the noble Lord has linked the word "citizen" with "a British subject or citizen of that country," and in my opinion has thus shown that by the use of the words "British subject or citizen" he is dealing 1023 with the nationality of the people concerned. I can well understand why he has added the words. But, whether he is right or wrong, there it is. With my long experience of Acts of Parliament, I think that subsection (1) of Clause 1 is badly drafted, because it does not show the limits within which, in this country, the conditions of being a British subject are to be ascertained. I was well aware, of course, of Lord Altrincham's words, and I am not quite sure that it may not be better if some other word is used instead of "citizen"; but that does not affect my comment upon the clause in the Bill.
One other matter I wish to discuss is the right of entry into this country. That may, in the future, be of great importance. We may be involved in wars, we do not know with whom, and it is essential that we should know who British subjects are. British subjects, of course, are people who are liable to be dealt with under the laws of treason, and they may, possibly, engage in practices to which we strongly object. Therefore, from that point of view—which is the opposite point of view to the one dealing with rights—it is essential that we should have no doubt on the question as to who British subjects are. Other countries—some of whom are mentioned in subsection (2) of the first clause—are entitled to alter their laws when they think fit. They can change their definition of "citizen." There is a very wide field for speculation, I suggest, as to who British subjects will be in the future. For all these reasons, in addition to those which have already been stated, I strongly suggest to the Government, and particularly to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, that the form of Clause 1 ought to be reconsidered. I suggest that it is open to grave objection. If the wording of Lord Altrincham's Amendment is not wholly satisfactory, that may be altered. But my main hope and desire is that the rules which affect this vital question of British subjects should be perfect, intelligible and certain. I do not think the clause as at present drafted carries out that desire.

§ 5.52 p.m.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I had not intended to intervene in the debate on this Amendment; I was going 1024 to speak upon a later one. But in view of the course of the debate, I feel that perhaps it may be useful if I give some advice to those who sit behind me. I think that we have had an interesting and valuable discussion. We have had two main speeches from the Government Benches—the first from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the second from the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. If the Lord Chancellor will allow me to say so—and I think I represent those who sit upon these Benches—I did not find his speech at all convincing. He lectured us rather as if we were small boys. I had a faint impression that he was adopting the well-known device of shouting rather loudly to cover up what he conceived to be rather a weak case.
The noble and learned Viscount said, several times I think, that if we passed this Amendment we should be throwing over an agreement which had been reached with the Dominions. And he rather gave an impression that this was a hard and fast agreement. I believe that I am quoting his words correctly when I say that he said that the Dominions had agreed the clause. I think he said that. Now that is what I call a hard and fast agreement. But, in the last sentences of his speech, the noble and learned Viscount said something to the effect that there was hope or likelihood of the other Dominions passing similar legislation. Now that does not suggest a hard and fast agreement. The Lord Chancellor indicated that he did not know whether they were going to pass similar Bills, but he hoped that they would. I cannot believe that the Government entered into an agreement which bound us to the wording of this clause when the other Dominions were not bound even to pass a Bill at all. Moreover, suppose they do not. Or suppose that we do not. It is ludicrous to suppose that that would be a severe blow to the British Commonwealth and Empire. Look at Canada. Canada passed a Bill some time ago. No one else has done so. Yet the Empire has gone on perfectly well.
I cannot believe that any of the Dominions would think that we were behaving in an improper manner if we felt it necessary to devise for that portion of the Commonwealth for which we are personally responsible a form of wording which we believe to be right. I cannot 1025 see anything in what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said to justify this phrase: "Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies." It is an absurd combination. Of course, you have citizenship of Australia, citizenship of Canada, citizenship of New Zealand—and even citizenship of the United Kingdom. That is understandable, in the case of homogeneous communities with the same ideas and the same standards of civilisation. But "United Kingdom and Colonies" is something entirely different. I do not believe that it would be useful or valuable from the point of view of the Empire. I do not wish to put myself forward as a great authority on this question but, as your Lordships know, I have served for some time at both the Colonial Office and the Dominions Office. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said nothing which alleviated my anxieties as to the effect in the Colonies of this impression that Whitehall government was resuming sway.
I listened, afterwards, to a speech by the noble Lord, Lord Milverton. Of course, the noble Lord is a man who has spent practically his whole life in the Colonial Service, and we all, on whatever side of the House we may sit, listen to his remarks with the great respect which they deserve. But I do not think that he put up a very enthusiastic case for this Amendment. It appeared to me that he thought that at any rate it would do no harm; and that is certainly a point of view which he may hold. But, like the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, he made no great effort to defend this strange combination of "the United Kingdom and Colonies." He did say that during his great career in the Colonial Service he had never encountered evidence of this objection to Whitehall government except, perhaps, in very small sections of the population. I was greatly surprised to hear that. During the time that I was at the Colonial Office, I had constant evidence of it—it came in practically the whole time. The noble Lord must have been extremely fortunate in the areas in which he served. Certainly the objection could not fail to be impressed on the mind of anyone who held the offices which I held. If the noble Lord were to go to Kenya and make there the same speech which he has made here, I think he would not have an entirely enthusiastic recep- 1026 tion. My experience—not, perhaps, that of what one might call the highly educated, but rather that of those who have a certain modicum of education in the Colonies—is that Whitehall government is anathema to them. They attach very great importance to the feeling that they govern themselves. Indeed, I have always supposed that it was the whole basis of our Colonial Government that we build up—I have described it before in this House—on the system of what may be called the ladder.
It starts with a very low standard of civilisation—perhaps some of the islands in the Pacific—and they have to be almost entirely governed from this country. Gradually, the standard of civilisation is raised: there is a legislative assembly, and an executive council. Then there arises a local majority on the legislative body; and so the process grows, until right at the top one finds the self-governing territories of the British Empire—nations equal in every way to ourselves. I think that is a magnificent conception. I have no doubt that feeling is shared by everybody, in every part of this House; but in my view its achievement depends on not emphasising the perpetual control which in many cases has to be exercised from here. To create this utterly unreal category of "United Kingdom and Colonial" citizenship can have only that effect.
What are we to do? With great deference to the noble Lord, Lord Milverton, I do not think the present wording of the Bill, with this strange category, would be good from the Commonwealth point of view. Equally, I do not think the agreement into which we have entered, from what I have heard of it, is nearly so binding as we may have thought from the first part of the noble and learned Viscount's speech. At any rate, I feel we should be wrong in this House if we did not make an alteration which we believe to be right. I think we should do that and send it to another place, in order that not only the House of Commons but also the Government itself may have an opportunity for further consideration. If we do not do that, there will be no further consideration. The Government will use their majority in another place to stifle any further consideration of this question. This is no clash between the two Houses. 1027 We seek merely to give an opportunity of alternative wording being discussed, and I think that is our proper duty.
I believe I am right in saying that in the fairly near future there is to be in this country one of those most desirable Conferences of leading statesmen of the Commonwealth and Empire. I wish very much that this extremely important question could have been held over till then, so that it could have been discussed not only by officials, however highly placed, but by the political heads of the Commonwealth countries. If that is not possible—and that is a matter for the Government and not for the Opposition or this House—I think it right for the Government and House of Commons to have an opportunity for considering these alternative words. Therefore, I advise my noble friend Lord Altrincham to press his Amendment to a Division.

§ 6.3 p.m.

§ THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)
I intervene for a few moments because it happens that I was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs when this conference was held, and I was intimately concerned in its proceedings from start to finish. I cannot say how deeply I regret that this subject should be turned into what may seem to be a Party question. It would be completely deplorable from every point of view. The conference arose out of the fact that the Canadian Parliament passed its own Bill which established that a citizen of Canada was a British subject. It was felt on all hands that it was an urgent necessity to call a conference to see whether some common measure of agreement could not be found on the nationality question and the complicated legal matters connected with it. It was recognised that the question was beset with all manner of legal technicalities, such as the position of married women and children, and it was suggested that there should be a conference of experts. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, I think, referred more than once to the conference of experts. The whole question is exceedingly technical, and the sole purpose of the conference was to see to what extent we could secure a common measure of agreement in the Commonwealth in dealing with these technical legal questions.
1028 As the Secretary of State, I was in daily touch with the conference and almost every day there were matters which we referred to the High Commissioners or directed to the Commonwealth Governments. I have had a fairly extensive experience in these affairs, and I have never known a meeting where there was more free, constant examination by all concerned with a view to arriving, so far as possible, at a common measure of understanding; and the result of the conference was this general scheme that the citizens of the nations of the Commonwealth should have the expression "British subject" applied to all of them. It is quite right that this Government is entitled to pass what law it likes, like any Dominion Government. The conference did not result in any agreement by I which we were bound, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, suggested, but there was complete agreement on the form for dealing with this question, and it was understood that the United Kingdom Government would take the lead by introducing a Bill on these lines in the British Parliament. That was the common understanding and agreement and it was in pursuance of that——

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I asked a question which has not been answered. I quite appreciate that there is no formal contract, but what I should like the noble Viscount to tell us is this. Suppose that New Zealand passes a law that the people of New Zealand shall be "British subjects of New Zealand," does the noble Viscount appreciate that in that event the clause upon which he is insisting does not make such people British subjects in this country at all? That is a perfectly simple question.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
That is one of the suppositions to which I am coming; I have a note of it. It was not an agreement which we signed. The conference resulted in an understanding that the United Kingdom Government would introduce a Bill on these lines, and then, as and in what form they themselves decided, the Commonwealth Parliaments would follow it by introducing their own Bills. It was in pursuance of that understanding that this Bill has been drafted and introduced. I hope that is quite clear. I have never heard of anyone objecting to the word "citizen." The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, had better read up the history 1029 of the City of London. He seems to think that the word "citizen" has acquired in later days a republican connotation.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
I particularly said there was the citizenship of a great city and the citizenship of a country.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
The noble Lord was talking about the word, "citizen." If I remember aright the history of London, the citizens gloried in calling themselves citizens. I come to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. It was a common understanding that we should bring forward a Bill carrying out the scheme that was agreed upon. I cannot pledge myself as to what the New Zealand Bill will be like. Of course I cannot. That is for them to say. But, from frequent conversations of a very emphatic kind, I can say that I feel quite sure that the New Zealand Government will not introduce a Bill which will designate the citizens of New Zealand as "British subjects of New Zealand." They glory in the fact that they are New Zealanders; and they glory in the fact that they are British subjects. The same can be said of Canada. With the greatest possible respect, I am certain that the supposition of the noble and learned Viscount, so far as I know anything of these people—and I know them very well—is not likely to be realised in the very least.
Let me return to the point we really have before us. I feel sure that if the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, is carried, it will be regarded by those who were present at this conference as a departure from the understanding. There is no doubt about that. I am quite sure that it is contrary to the whole spirit of the understanding arrived at after weeks and weeks of friendly negotiation, and I entreat your Lordships, with all the earnestness that I can command, not to insist on this Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
Before the Committee goes to a Division, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words. As has been repeatedly said on all sides, this is not a Party question. Naturally, each member of the Committee will be free to vote as he desires. My own inclination at the opening of this debate, to which I have listened with great attention, as have several of my noble friends, was to 1030 lay chief emphasis on the last point that has just been made by the noble Viscount the Leader of the House—namely, that after long discussions in expert and representative conferences, agreements had been arrived at; that this Bill was introduced as a consequence of the agreements; and that this Committee would be ill-advised to do anything which would destroy their effect. But, listening to the debate as it has proceeded, it seemed to me that there was great force in the arguments advanced by noble Lords who have spoken from the Opposition Front Bench, and those who have supported the same view. Certainly the designation "a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies" is not a happy one It is not a good term of art, and in common usage over a period of years it would not be regarded as a good phrase. I think it should be open to review. Nor have we to-day sufficient information as to the real opinion of the Dominions on this point, particularly in Australia and New Zealand.

§ VISCOUNT ADDISON
May I interrupt the noble Viscount? I can say with complete confidence that the Dominions have all expressed their approval of the general scheme that was arrived at by the conference. I can also say, speaking for the Secretary of State for the Colonies, that the Colonial Governors have been intimately acquainted with all that has been going on in these discussions over the whole time. Nobody has objected to this scheme; in fact, they have all concurred.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
It would be very useful to this Committee, and to this Parliament as a whole, if we really knew what the Australians and the New Zealanders have in prospect for the future, for the reasons pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon. On the whole, therefore, I think the Committee ought to make it quite clear that, in any action they take, they do not wish in any degree to destroy the work or upset the agreement achieved at these conferences. As the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition has just said, this proposal is put forward not as a definite final view—they are not tied to the precise words of the Amendment that is being moved——

§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.

1031

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
I see they renew their assent to that. What is desired is to make it clear that this Committee regard as important the designation of "British subject" for the people of this country; and that, furthermore, time should be given for a further expression of views from the Dominions before Parliament passes this Bill into law. Consequently, it seems to me that it would do no harm to put this Amendment into the Bill at this stage, as an expression of the general desire of probably the great majority of this Committee, on the clear and definite understanding that those of us who vote for the Amendment attach the greatest importance to the passage of legislation on these general lines: that we

§ Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

§ 6.26 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved after subsection (1) to insert the following new subsection: (2) Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British sub-

1032

§ respect the agreements already arrived at; and that, while we think the matter might be further considered, possibly on the Report stage in this House—and it will undoubtedly be reconsidered in another place—something like this Amendment might be put in, not as representing the final definite view of the House of Lords as a whole, by which it means to stand and fall, but rather to open the way for further discussion of a very difficult and complicated matter.

§ On Question, Whether the said subsection shall stand part of the clause?

§ Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 75.

1031

CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Chorley, L. [Teller.]	Merthyr, L.
Addison, V. (Lord Privy Seal.)	Darwen, L.	Milverton, L.
Hall, V.	Faringdon, L.	Pakenham, L.
St. Davids, V.	Henderson, L.	Pethick-Lawrence, L.
	Holden, L.	Rochester, L.
Ammon, L.	Kershaw, L.	Rothschild, L.
Calverley, L.	Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Shepherd, L.
		Walkden, L. [Teller.]

NOT CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D.	Elibank, V.	Greville, L.
	FitzAlan of Derwent, V.	Hawke, L.
Cholmondley, M.	Hailsham, V.	Hindlip, L.
Reading, M.	Long, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.
Salisbury, M.	Maugham, V.	Hutchison of Montrose, L.
Townsend, M.	Samuel, V.	Jessel, L.
Willingdon, M.	Simon, V.	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
	Swinton, V.	Llewellin, L.
Albemarle, E.		Lloyd, L.
Ancaster, E.	Aberdare, L.	Lyle of Westbourne, L.
Beatty, E.	Altrincham, L.	Mancroft, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Amherst of Hackney, L.	Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)
Dartmouth, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Monson, L.
De La Warr, E.	Barnby, L.	Moyne, L.
Dundonald, E.	Belstead, L.	Newall, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Blackford, L.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Howe, E.	Brassey of Apethorpe, L.	Remnant, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Broughshane, L.	Saltoun, L.
Lindsay, E.	Carrington, L. [Teller.]	Schuster, L.
Lucan, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)
Munster, E.		Somers, L.
Onslow, E.	Courtauld-Thomson, L.	Templemore, L.
Rothes, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Teviot, L.
Selkirk, E.	Digby, L.	Teynham, L.
Stanhope, E.	Gage, L. (V. Gage.)	Waleran, L.
Ypres, E.	Gifford, L.	Wardington, L.
		Wolverton, L.

1032

§ ject as or a Commonwealth citizen; and accordingly in this Act and in any other enactment or instrument whatever, whether passed or made before or after the commencement of this Act the expression 'British subject' and the expression 'Commonwealth citizen' shall have the same meaning."

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: I think this Amendment still stands. What we have done is this. We have said that 1033 every person who is a British subject is a British subject and has the status of a British subject. Now we say: Any person having the status aforesaid may be known either as a British subject or as a Commonwealth citizen. It is all very obscure to me now, but I do not think it does any harm. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved to add to the clause as a new subsection: (3) Nothing in this Act shall affect the status by British law of a citizen of Eire in respect of his right to be regarded as a British subject.

§ The noble Marquess said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name:

§ Page 1, line 15, at end insert— (3) nothing in this Act shall affect the status by British law"— I would like to say "existing British law"— of a citizen of Eire in respect of his right to be regarded as a British subject. I move this Amendment after very careful consideration, and with a real sense of responsibility. I wish most sincerely that it had not been necessary, but equally I wish that this Bill had never been introduced at all. I believe that this clause is both unfortunate and unwise, for it seeks to define (and I am speaking here of the whole Bill and also of this clause) in clear and unequivocal terms a relationship between this country and other parts of the Commonwealth and Empire. That, I should have thought, was the one thing which we should studiously avoid doing. It is, after all, the great merit of the structure of this great association of free self-governing countries that it has no sealed pattern. It is full of anomalies and it is full of inconsistencies. It has no uniformity anywhere; it has just grown as it is in accordance with the circumstances in each particular area. It is constantly altering and evolving to meet changing needs. It is elastic and undefined. That is, after all, its great strength; that is why it endures while other similar combinations in the past have crumbled into dust.

1034

§ This great quality of what I may call haziness and absence of definition is nowhere more vital than in the relationship between the United Kingdom and Eire. After a long and, I am afraid, turbulent history, we have at last found a modus vivendi which has worked for the past few years without friction—not only without undue friction but without any friction at all. The Eire Government interpret the position as they see it and we interpret the position as we see it. We do not try to impose our own interpretation on them and they do not try to impose their interpretation, on us; and on that basis we get on very well. It has always been my belief that if that policy on both sides could be allowed to continue, the Anglo-Irish problem would ultimately solve itself on a basis satisfactory to both nations and on a foundation of mutual respect.

§ And now the Government come along with a nice, neat plan, the purpose of which is to define what cannot be defined and to bring the United Kingdom law and Eire law in conformity with each other. What is the result? They create only a new set of anomalies; and, as I am sure many of your Lordships know, in doing so they are likely to inflict a severe and unnecessary affront upon the deepest feelings of that section of the population of Eire which has always stood by us in fair weather and foul. Hitherto that section of the population have regarded themselves as loyal subjects of His Majesty the King. That has been their position under the law of the United Kingdom, and it belonged to them without any question. Now, under this Bill, that historic right is denied them unless they write a personal letter to the Home Secretary asking that their immemorial rights should be continued. They have to justify their claim by showing that they come within certain categories. I cannot but feel that to ask that of them is humiliating both to them and to us. It is not as if the status of a British subject were incompatible with loyalty to their own country. The citizen of Canada is no less loyal to Canada because he has an additional loyalty as a British subject; and the same applies to the other great Commonwealth countries—Australia, New Zealand and South America.

§ Nor, I should have thought, could the Government of Eire complain if we continued the existing position. We are not 1035 asking them to alter their law; we are not in any way interfering in their internal affairs. It is entirely our affair here in Westminster. I know I shall be told that even under this new law Eire nationals will, in practice, retain a great proportion of their existing rights and privileges in this country. They will not, under Clause 31, be classed as aliens. But what they will be, Heaven only knows. That is only one of the new anomalies created by this Bill. One thing is certain. Unless these people lodge a special claim—which may be extremely embarrassing for them—they will no longer be British subjects. They will become, if not aliens, at any rate foreigners. That we, here at Westminster, should be asked of our own free will to pass such a provision appears to me to be quite an odious thing. It is an insult, too, to these most loyal of the King's subjects. As your Lordships know, they came in their thousands during the war to help us in our necessity. They came and fought, and in many cases died, for the King. And this is how we repay them and their families! I feel it more strongly than I can say.

§ The purpose of my Amendment is to leave the situation exactly as it was before the introduction of this Bill. It does not seek to define the situation further; it leaves it where it was; and that is what I believe to be the course of wisdom. I commend it, therefore, to your Lordships' approval. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept it, otherwise I am afraid that I shall have no option but to press it to a Division. I beg the Government most sincerely to give us a favourable answer. To cast out loyal subjects of the King can do no good to them or to us and must decrease the respect in which we are held in Eire itself.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

§ 6.38 p.m.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I may say at once to the noble Marquess, without ambiguity, that I regret I cannot accept his Amendment, and he must, therefore, take the matter to a Division. I am very sorry. I would personally do a great deal to contribute in any way I could to removing any of the troubles and the causes of disharmony which have 1036 prevailed between us and Southern Ireland. I would not, of course, in order to come to an agreement in the future, be willing to throw to the wolves anybody who had stood by me in the past. I should dearly like to see the future relationship between Eire and ourselves completely free from all those suspicions and troubles that have characterised them in the past.
Let me remind your Lordships what we are trying to do in this Bill—for which I may say we have the agreement of the Eire people. We have a real chance, I believe, to solve the problem. This is the scheme. If your Lordships will look at the Bill you will see we say, in Clause 2: Any citizen of Eire… we have left "Ireland" out of Clauses 1 and 2, for reasons which your Lordships will no doubt all appreciate— who…was also a British subject shall remain a British subject by virtue of this section… if he gives notice in writing…claiming to remain a British subject… on one of these specific grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Templemore, has an Amendment to make it plain that that is to be final and conclusive, and I agree in substance with that. But, as the Bill stands, the claim as an assertion is enough. There are no other qualifications. He can remain a British subject. And, be it observed, he can make this assertion at any time. Anybody who at any time chooses to make this assertion can make it—there is no question of a discretion or anything of that sort. That makes him a British subject. But that, of course, does not apply to persons born after the passing of the Act. The people who are born after the Act are not to be British subjects, yet in substance they are to have all the rights and privileges as though they were.
Your Lordships may say that that is a very peculiar thing. It is indeed very confusing, but there is a reason behind it. The Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1935 provides that every Irish citizen, if he becomes a citizen of another country, shall ipso facto cease to be a citizen of Eire. That is what it says. By their legislation they have repealed all the relevant Statutes and the Common Law of this country and they have said simply: "Any Irish citizen who becomes a British subject shall cease to be an Irish citizen." We have countered that in this way. Let us conceive that these people 1037 are not British subjects, but let us say to them "Whether you are British subjects or not, you have all those same rights and privileges as though you were." That seems to me a reasonable way out of this difficulty. As the noble Marquess said, they are not aliens. Clause 31 at page 14, line 40, says: 'Alien' means a person who is not a British subject, a British protected person or a citizen of Eire.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
What was the date of the Irish Act?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
1935. So they are not aliens. I agree that, unless they choose to write this letter—they can do that either from Ireland or from here—they do not become British subjects but, in spite of the fact that they do not become British subjects, they have all the rights and privileges as though they had become British subjects. Thus prestige was saved; thus everybody was happy and contented. That agreement, which in a sense is not an agreement which can be enforced in a court, has been covered, and I submit to your Lordships that this clause would solve the difficulty.
Some of your Lordships will say that this scheme is no good. As the noble Marquess recognises, this Amendment is a very important one. I fully understand his reasons. Looking at it from a British point of view, I quite see the case for the Amendment, but I have tried to look at it not exclusively from a British point of view. I have tried to look at it from a British and an Irish point of view. I have tried to look at it from the point of view of seeing whether we cannot evolve some method of getting over this difficulty. If this Amendment is carried, then that olive branch has gone. The Amendment provides that: Nothing in this Act shall affect the status by British law… I am not quite sure what "British law" means. Does the noble Marquess mean the laws of this country or does he mean, say, the laws of New Zealand?—because, surely, in this context he is using the word "British" in the wrong sense. I presume that he means the law of the United Kingdom.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I accept that correction. This Amendment is badly drafted.

1038

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I think that perhaps the noble Marquess would like to make the point clear. On the assumption that that is his meaning in this, Amendment, as I felt sure it was, my real objection to the Amendment is this. It would mean, or it would certainly be taken to mean, that the United Kingdom Government were reasserting their claim to impose upon Eire citizens the name "British subject." That is a claim which is repudiated by Irish law. For us to assert that we insist on these people living in Ireland being called "British subjects" would be to treat Eire as a Dominion, and I am afraid that that would be regarded by them as an unfriendly act. I hope that the noble Marquess will consider whether he cannot I content himself with having made his protest. I am sure that he does not want—any more than I do—to have unnecessary trouble over this matter. Will the noble Marquess not think again to see whether he cannot accept the conception we have?—of not calling them British subjects and of not thrusting that clown their throats, but of saying that they shall have all rights as though they were British subject? and, for the rest, of allowing those who so desire to make an assertion on any ground upon which they choose to assert. Your Lordships will see that the words are very wide. If they want to be able to say: "Well, thank goodness, I am a British subject," then they have a way of doing it by writing a letter, which they can do at any time. That is the conception. If that course commends itself to your Lordships, I shall be very glad.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I am afraid that we cannot accept the proposition which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has put forward. He has said that, unless we take his Clause 2 and the whole of this Bill as it stands, we are rejecting an olive branch. We are really doing nothing of the kind. We are told that this Bill had to be introduced, but the more I go into it the more I regret that we should have to have this Bill. The whole argument was that this Bill had to be introduced because of an Act that was passed in the Canadian Parliament a year or two ago. Nobody would ever have dreamt of introducing this Bill because of an Act passed in the Eire Parliament in 1935, The Eire Act of Parliament, the noble and learned 1039 Viscount the Lord Chancellor told us, was passed in 1935. It is all very illogical, for during all those years of peace and years of war we carried on all right.
We in England regarded every national of Eire in the United Kingdom as a British subject in this country. No one ever objected to it, either in this country or in Eire. It worked all right. That would have gone on for another thirteen years if this Bill had not been introduced. But now something has to be put into this Bill. In these Irish matters, it is much better not to pass Acts of Parliament, at any rate so far as we are concerned, but to have as little in writing as possible and to let things proceed in the curious, illogical and (to use the noble Marquess's expression) hazy way in which somehow these things do work. But now we have to have something because, if Clause 1 of this Bill stood alone, the national of Eire would be deprived of his rights as a British subject. Surely the sensible and practical thing to do is to say that nothing shall affect the position as it exists before the passing of this Act, the position as it has existed in this country for the thirteen years since the Government of Eire passed the Act of 1935. No one can suggest that the maintenance of that status quo is either a rejection of an olive branch or anything offensive. It is the simple course, and to us it seems to be the straightforward course. But what we cannot do is to say: "Because the Government of Eire have passed legislation which they were fully entitled to pass, we, by an Act of Parliament passed by the Government of the United Kingdom, where we have entire control over what we do, are going to drive loyal British subjects out of being British subjects unless they write a letter to the Home Secretary." We cannot do that.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
May I ask a question as to what is the real meaning and effect of this Amendment? To take a concrete case, there is the question of the application of the laws with regard to treason. As your Lordships may remember, there was a painful case during the Second World War, in which a person who claimed that he was an Irish citizen and not a British subject was in fact convicted of treason and held to be a British 1040 subject. If this Amendment is put in, would it mean that any citizens of Eire in time of war could be accused of treason here? That is one point. Another point is: Does this Bill, in Clause 3, affect that? Presumably not; but the wording in Clause 3 is obscure. If that point could be elucidated from both sides of the Committee I think it would be very helpful, because I am sure the noble Marquess would not wish to bring in any legislation which would enable the Government of Eire to say, "Here is the British Government keeping a hold on everyone in our country and, in spite of our own legislation, passing a statute at Westminster which would make any of our subjects or citizens liable to prosecution for treason if they took any action which would be held to be treasonable if taken by a resident of Great Britain."

LORD SALTOUN
I did not want to intervene in this debate, but one half of the blood in my veins is Irish, most of my childhood was spent in Ireland, and I have many families of Irish cousins, some of whom have suffered great wrongs and great hardships because of their loyalty to the connection. They are held to us by a loyalty that quite transcends our own loyalty to Parliament or to Statute. They are held to us by the highest loyalty of all, and I do not see how many of these people who have suffered so much because of it—and I am not speaking of their service in the war, I am thinking of the past—can write. I do not think they can for a moment. Therefore I do not entirely welcome this provision that they can write to a Secretary of State of a Government to which they owe no duty. After what they have been through, I do not think that many of them will feel that they can write; therefore, that seems to be a dead letter, and I think something else should be considered even though this Amendment be not accepted.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
May I answer the question which was put by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel? The effect of putting this subsection into the clause, if we stopped there, would mean that if any citizen of Eire were guilty of treason by reason of acts committed in Eire, he would be amenable and subject to our law here. If we could get him 1041 here we could try him for high treason. But by the Amendment to Clause 3 at the top of page 3, I am making an express effort to prevent that result arising. Therefore, whether we pass this Amendment or not, so long as we pass the clause at the top of page 3 the Eire citizen would not be subject to our laws here for high treason.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
An Amendment to Clause 3 is to be moved which covers the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. We are not proposing to move the omission of Clause 3; therefore it is quite possible that the Amendment could be introduced and passed.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If my Amendment is passed, as I understand it, it will make the matter plain that, whether we insert this Amendment or not, no Eire citizen by reason of that which he does in Eire would be guilty of high treason for which he could be brought to justice here.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
That will happen in any case, whether my Amendment is passed or not?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If my Amendment is passed.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
With regard to the merits of the Amendment, I am afraid I cannot on this occasion support the noble Marquess. The question of persons who have always hitherto been British citizens and who retain an attachment to this country but who are resident in Ireland is a very delicate and difficult question on which the people of Ireland are extremely sensitive. It seems that they have gone a long way in agreeing that any of the Southern Ireland loyalists who wish to do so can retain British citizenship, even though they continue to remain all their lives as residents in Ireland. That seems to be a very unusual provision, and one which is a great concession to that feeling of longstanding British patriotism to which the noble Marquess has referred. Having got the agreement of the Eire Government to a provision of that kind, I do not think we should insert another provision to which, so far as I know, the Eire Government would not agree. If the noble Marquess thinks that they would agree, then it would be on a different footing.

1042

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
What I am not quite clear about is this. Under the existing provisions of the Bill, the Eire Government agree that where a man applies to the Home Secretary for British citizenship they will wink at his having British citizenship in this country under United Kingdom law. I do not think that they suggest that under Eireann law he should have a right to be a British subject. Are they agreeing to that? Because, in any case, it is not clear from the Bill.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I know that the actual provisions of this clause have been very carefully worked out and agreed with the Eireann Government. I will read a letter I have here: The Eireann Government dislike any provision whereby Eire citizens would, after our Bill became law, be British subjects, but they were persuaded to agree to provisions whereby existing Eire citizens who so desired could continue to be British subjects, on the understanding that this would be limited to persons possessing some association with the United Kingdom who formally signified their desire; i.e., the retention of the status of British subjects would be the result of a process of contracting in. We have no reason to think that the present Eire Government's views differ from those of their predecessors. May I add this. We thought, rightly or wrongly, that in this scheme we had obtained a greater concession in regard to this matter than we have ever obtained before. We were very proud of what we had obtained in this Bill with regard to Eire. As to whether or not it was right or wise to introduce this Bill, I will not quarrel with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton. The Bill has been introduced, and it has been introduced with this clause, which represents an agreement. If that agreement is going to be thrown overboard—which would be the result of the passing of this Amendment—then I think it is most unfortunate.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
I am still not clear. I may be extremely stupid about this matter, but is the agreement with the Eire Government that a man should be permitted to retain the status of a British subject under Eireann law or only United Kingdom law? If they have agreed that he should be entitled to retain the status of a British subject under United Kingdom law they are giving nothing away; they are giving him only the rights which he has had already. If they are saying that he has the right to retain the status of a British subject 1043 under Eireann law, that is a matter which will require further consideration.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Section 21 (1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act of 1935 says that if an Irish citizen becomes a citizen of another country he shall thereupon cease to be a citizen of Eire. That word "becomes" has to be considered rather carefully, because the Irish, in my opinion, are a much more logical race than we are, and they are certainly rather keen on this very subtle point. The Act says "becomes a citizen." To become a citizen is one thing, to remain a citizen is quite another. I think that they are saying that if these people who have been British subjects, who have had association with Great Britain, send in this letter and ask that their interests should remain what they are, they do not "become" British subjects within the meaning of their Act, and therefore they do not cease to be Eire citizens. So it is not merely that they are recognising the effect of our law; I think they are also recognising that under this law, these people do not incur the prohibition or the penalty provided by Section 21 (1) of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
Really it means, does it not, that it is considered that people who write this letter are not committing a breach of the Eire Act of 1935, and that they will enjoy a sort of dual nationality. I do not think that the Lord Chancellor has made the position quite clear, and it is a point that is extremely important to us. Here, for the first time, if we pass this Bill as it stands, we are acknowledging by British Act of Parliament what an Eire Act of Parliament has done. Hitherto we have gone on in our old illogical way—we passing our Acts of Parliament and they passing theirs. If we pass this, even with the addition of Clause 2, what we are saying is that whereas by United Kingdom law every Irishman enjoys the rights of a British subject—and is a British subject—unless these people send this letter to the Home Secretary (and the people affected will form a very small group) they will, by United Kingdom law, deprive themselves of their rights as British subjects.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Such a man will deprive himself of no right 1044 except of saying: "I am a British subject." He will have all the rights as though he were a British subject. Surely, with regard to a Dominion we recognise, by the Statute of Westminster, that it is for the Dominion to legislate with regard to the nationals inside that Dominion. In this connection we can pray in aid what Canada has said. She has said: "Canadian citizens shall be British subjects." But suppose that Canada had chosen to say: "Canadian citizens or a certain group of Canadian citizens shall not be British subjects." That surely would be a matter for Canada—a matter of her own internal concern entirely.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
It is a fair analogy. I would think that Canada has the right to legislate for her own citizens within her own doors. But it is for us to legislate as we like here, as to our attitude towards and the status which, under United Kingdom law, we accord to citizens of Canada or Eire. I am not in the least anxious to interfere with the law of Eire, but I suggest that we have the right to put any interpretation we like upon our own position.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
We have an absolute right to do as we like. The question is, what is wise and discreet. Suppose that the Canadian Act had said that a certain class of Canadian citizens should not be British subjects, I ask the noble Marquess, would it be wise that this Parliament over here should legislate in contradiction of that Canadian Act? It seems to me that it would be most unwise.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
That is exactly my argument against this Bill. I think that that is just what this Government are doing. They are legislating when they ought not to be legislating. They are legislating when they ought to leave well alone. I would not legislate. The Government are legislating, in this connection, and we think they are making a great mistake.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
The Government having introduced this Bill, and there being every probability of the Bill going through, the question is what it would be wise for this Parliament to do in relation to residents of Eire. We cannot expect persons with British sympathies who continue to reside in Eire to form a sort of 1045 little British enclave within that country. We must be careful lest we give the Irish people the impression that we think they should. It is going a long way to say that the person who has resided all his life in Eire, and who has all his interests in Eire, still continues to be a British subject, as well as being an Irish citizen.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Not in Eire.

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
No, not while he is resident in Eire, but it would be known that he retains this status. I would appeal to the noble Marquess that it might be wise not to press this to-day. There will be opportunity for further consideration of this matter and if necessary it can be brought up again on Report stage.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
Before the House comes to a decision on this point, I would like to take up what the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, has just said about these small groups of people in Eire who, I think he suggested, maintained a sort of little British island over there. I see that my noble friends Lord Moyne and Lord Headfort are both here, and I am sure they will bear me out that that is not the case at all. These people who, in my opinion, had a pretty raw deal in 1922, have since become very useful and loyal citizens, first of the Irish Free State, and then of Eire. They have done that partly owing to their own good sense and courage but also, very largely, owing to the fair dealing and moderation of successive Irish Governments—first the Government of Mr. Cosgrave, then for sixteen years the Government of Mr. de Valera, and now the Government of Mr. Costello, which took office some six months ago. But these people, in spite of the fact that they are useful and earnest citizens of Eire, do value their British connection, and wish to stick to us. I hope very much that they will be allowed to do so.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK
I would like to ask this question. There has been reference to the privilege of having this "bit of paper." Does that privilege apply only to the present generation, or will it extend into the future? I think that is a very important point. There are Southern Irish loyalists to-day—and there may be more in the future—who wish to come 1046 and support us as they have done in the past. I remember that it seemed to many of us, after the First World War, that the Southern Irish loyalists were let down. I feel strongly with my noble leader the Marquess of Salisbury that we ought to do nothing on this occasion which will tend to result in letting them down again, as they were let down then. If we are to understand that this privilege applies only to this generation I think the position would be even worse.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
It applies only to persons living at the time of the passing of the Act, and not to future generations. With regard to people in the future—children born in years to come—although they will not be able to avail themselves of the right to call themselves British subjects, still they will have the rights and the privileges as though they were British subjects. So what all this pother is about I do not quite see. Although they will not be British subjects, they will have rights as though they were. If the Irish are prepared to agree to that, I suggest that your Lordships ought to be prepared to agree to it also.

THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY
It seems a very curious situation. The Lord Chancellor, as I understand, said that under Irish law if a man has another nationality he ceases to have Eire nationality.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
If he becomes, another national.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
But if we pass this Amendment, which says that the situation remains exactly as it was, then they do not "become" British subjects, they "remain" British subjects, and therefore there is no complaint on the part of the Irish Government. They do not "become"; they always have been. We are seeking to delete from the Bill something which would have altered the law, and to keep it as it was. I fully understand that this is a delicate matter, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, but we really are being asked to push British subjects out of the British Empire. Yes, we are; we are taking away the right to be a British subject. We have at present an automatic and all embracing right to be a British subject. If a citizen of Eire does not like us, he does not pay much attention to that right 1047 he does not exercise it. But he has an absolute right to be a British subject. Now, by something we are doing here, we are taking away from him that absolute right. We are telling him that if he writes to the Home Secretary and says he comes within category (a), (b) or (c), he can become a British subject. If he does not do that, he loses that status. I think that is a thing which this Parliament should not do, and for that reason I must press the Amendment to a Division.

§ EARL STANHOPE
I understand this provision will apply only to people living now. The difficulty I see is this. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, that it is most unfortunate that this Bill has to be introduced at all. I think it is a disaster, but it has happened and nothing we can do can prevent it going on and being considered by both Houses of Parliament. If an inhabitant of Eire

§ Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

§ Cause 1, as amended, agreed to.

1048

§ becomes a citizen of the United Kingdom, he ceases to be a citizen of Eire. That may entail all sorts of disadvantages. For instance, he cannot hold land. The best thing is that he should be considered in this country as a citizen, although he does not actually have to become so. That seems to be the only way to get out of it. I have a great deal of sympathy with this matter because, though I have lived all my life in England, I am half-Irish, and naturally look on this from both points of view. As the matter has arisen and we are faced with this situation, it seems to me that the proposal of the Government is the best that can be made. I do not like it. It is most unfortunate. But there it is, and we have to face the situation.

§ On Question, Whether the said subsection shall be there inserted?

§ Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 28.

1047

CONTENTS.
Sutherland, D.	FitzAlan of Derwent, V	Jessel, L.
	Hailsham, V.	Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)
Cholmondley, M.	Long, V.	Llewellin, L.
Salisbury, M.	Swinton, V.	Lloyd, L.
Townshend, M.		Mancroft, L.
	Altrincham, L.	Monson, L.
Beatty, E.	Balfour of Inchrye, L.	Moyne, L.
Dartmouth, E.	Belstead, L.	Newall, L.
De La Warr, E.	Broughshane, L.	Oxenfoord, L. (E. Stair.)
Dundonald, E.	Carrington, L. [Teller.]	Remnant, L.
Fortescue, E. [Teller.]	Clanwilliam, L. (E. william.)	Saltoun, L.
Howe, E.		Schuster, L.
Lindsay, E.	Courtauld-Thomson, L.	Shute, L. (V. Barrington)
Munster, E.	De L'Isle and Dudley, L.	Templemore, L.
Onslow, E.	Digby, L.	Teviot, L.
Rothes, E.	Gifford, L.	Teynham L.
Selkirk, E.	Greville, L.	Waleran, L.
Ypres, E.	Hawke, L.	Wardington, L.
	Hindlip, L.	Wolverton, L.
Elibank, V.	Howard of Glossop, L.

NOT CONTENTS.
Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Hall, V.	Kershaw, L.
Addison, V. (L. Privy Seal)	St. Davids, V.	Lucas of Chilworth, L
	Samuel, V.	Milverton, L.
Reading, M.		O'Hagan, L.
Willingdon, M.	Ammon, L.	Pakenham, L.
	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Pethick-Lawrence, L.
Albemarle, E.	Chorley, L. [Teller.]	Rochester, L.
Ancaster, E.	Darwen, L.	Rothschild, L.
Cranbrook, E.	Henderson, L.	Shepherd, L.
Iddesleigh, E.	Holden, L.	Walkden, L. [Teller]
Stanhope, E.

1048

§ [The Sitting was suspended at twenty-five minutes past seven and resumed at nine o'clock.]

1049

§ 9.0 p.m.

§ Clause 2:

§ Continuance of certain citizens of Eire as British subjects.

§ 2.—(1) Any citizen of Eire who, immediately before the commencement of this Act, was also a British subject shall remain a British subject by virtue of this section (whether or not he remains a British subject by virtue of any other provision of this Act) if he gives notice in writing to the Secretary of State claiming to remain a British subject on all or any of the following grounds—

(a) that he is, or has been, in Crown service under His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom;
(b) that he is the holder of a British passport issued by His Majesty's government in the United Kingdom or the government of any colony, protectorate, United Kingdom mandated territory or United Kingdom trust territory;
(c) that he has associations by way of descent, residence or otherwise with the United Kingdom or with any colony or protectorate or any such territory as aforesaid.

§ (2) If by any enactment for the time being in force in any country mentioned in subsection (2) of Section one of this Act provision, corresponding to subsection (1) of this section, is made for enabling citizens of Eire to claim to remain British subjects notwithstanding that they may not be citizens of the country in which the enactment is in force, any person who by virtue of that enactment remains a British subject shall be deemed also to have remained a British subject by virtue of this section.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, at the commencement of the clause to insert: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing section." The noble and learned Viscount said: I am in a slight difficulty about these next Amendments. I see an Amendment later by the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition to leave out Clause 2 altogether. I hope he is not going to move his Amendment, or at any rate carry it. He indicated to me just now that he was, and unless this short interval has had a softening effect upon him—which is unlikely—I am afraid he will do so. That being so, for a man who has every reason to suppose that he is to be executed this evening, it is not much good discussing a dinner engagement for one day next week. In those circumstances, not wanting to occupy your Lordships' time unnecessarily, I think I shall be meeting your Lordships' wishes if I do not move any of these Amendments, it being understood that I have not in any sense abandoned them, and that if in another place things take a different course these will be moved. I think the sensible thing to do, if it meets 1050 with your Lordships' wishes, is not to move them. In the meantime, I formally move the first Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 1, line 16, at beginning insert ("Notwithstanding the provisions of the foregoing section,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
My noble Leader asked me to apologise to the House for his inability to be here. What the Lord Chancellor has said, following Dr. Johnson, shows that forthcoming execution "concentrates a man's mind remarkably." We rather felt, in view of the Amendment which the House adopted just before we adjourned, that it was a logical sequence to leave out Clause 2. If Clause 2 existed, then obviously we ought to have an opportunity of considering the Lord Chancellor's Amendments, which I have no doubt are correct. I agree that at this stage the reasonable thing to do is for the House to follow the logical course and to omit Clause 2 now, but to return to it at some future date if the clause becomes relevant.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
That being so, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment, and I will not move the next two standing in my name.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD TEMPLEMORE
In view of what has been said, I do not propose to move my Amendments at page 2, line 12, or at page 2, line 21.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
On the same principle, I will not move my Amendment at page 2, line 12, or the succeeding two Amendments.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
On behalf of my noble friend, Lord Salisbury, I beg formally to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Leave out Clause 2.—(Viscount Swinton.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I would just like to say this. It is no good, I suppose, but once more I ask your Lordships to think about this matter. With all the excellent work that this House has done, looking back to the times of our fathers and our grandfathers, I think one of the most grievous mistakes that were made was made in our dealings with Ireland. I cannot help feeling that your Lordships' House are repeating that mistake. We hammered out with the Irish representatives—I will not say with blood 1051 and tears, but certainly with sweat—an agreement. Your Lordships, by deleting Clause 2, are undoing that agreement. I venture to say that that is a real misfortune. You are repeating, I believe, the mistakes which our ancestors made—for which we have no responsibility. Here is a chance to get on better ground.
I have said all I want to say about this matter, except to ask again why are you moving to leave out this clause? Is it supposedly in the interests of those people who are referred to as the Irish loyalists, to whom this country owes so much, who have done so much for this country and who, I do not doubt, would, in like circumstances do the same again? How do you advantage them? Are you going to place them in the difficult position in which they may have to choose between Irish citizenship and British nationality? By our very agreement we have devised a method which secured to the Irish that they would not be placed in that position. How on earth do you advantage them? I beg your Lordships to think again. By moving to leave out Clause 2, you may be hurting the very class of people whom your Lordships and I are most anxious to help. That being so, I would ask you, even at this late hour, even after what has been said, to think again about this matter and not to reject the hand which Ireland has held out.

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I do not propose to go back over all the arguments we had on the noble Marquess's Amendment. I think the whole House knows the noble Marquess well enough to realise that he does not do anything irresponsibly, and that his Amendment, which the Committee have carried, was put down only after most careful consideration and consultation. Our position is simple: we wish to preserve, in so far as we can, the status quo. We have carried on all right since Eire passed her Act in 1935. If this Bill had never been produced, we should have continued as before. We believe that the Tight thing to do, not only vis-à-vis the people of Ireland but for Irish relations, is to leave matters, so far as possible, as they are to-day. As we understand it, the Amendment which the Committee have carried to Clause 1, coupled with Clause 3, does that; therefore Clause 2 1052 becames superfluous. It could be of value only if we were to vote the bulk of the Irish people out of their status' as British subjects. While in no way receding from the position which we took up on the Amendment of the noble Marquess we will undertake this. We will consider between now and Report stage whether Clause 2 could usefully find any place in the Bill in the way in which the House will amend it. My impression is that it could not, but we will certainly consider that point between now and Report stage.

§ On Question, Amendment negatived.

§ Clause 2 agreed to.

§ Clause 3 [Status of citizens of Eire and British protected person]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice to move, at the commencement of the clause, to leave out, "Notwithstanding anything in this Act" and insert: A British subject or citizen of Eire who is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not be guilty of an offence against the laws of any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of any protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory by reason of anything done or omitted in any country mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act or in Eire or in any foreign country, unless—

(a) the act or omission would be an offence if he were an alien; and
(b) in the case of an act or omission in any country mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act or in Eire, it would be an offence if the country in which the act is done or the omission made were a foreign country:

§ Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the contravention of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1938.

§ (2) Subject to the provisions of this section."

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment of mine introduces a new subject matter. We have to consider this question. There are certain Statutes under which an offence committed by a British subject, no matter in what part of the world it has been committed, is triable here. Everyone knows that if a murder, for instance, is committed by a British subject, he can be tried at the Old Bailey, even if the murder was committed in Chile, Peru or in far distant parts of the world. That, of course, only applies if he is a British subject. This Amendment refers to "A British subject or citizen of Eire who is 1053 not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies."

§ With your Lordships' permission, I will move this Amendment in the form of "who is not a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and though I am moving it in that form, your Lordships will understand that I am not thereby expressing my approval or assent to any such alteration, but because I think it is much better to go on that basis in order to make sense. The proviso to the Amendment reads: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the contravention of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts. We thought there ought to be that distinction because any member of any of the various member States of the British Commonwealth might be the master of a British ship. I think your Lordships can take it that this does not infringe on any of the principles we were discussing, and I should recommend your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 2, line 22, leave out ("Notwithstanding anything in this Act") and insert ("A British subject or citizen of Eire who is not a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies shall not be guilty of an offence against the laws of any part of the United Kingdom and Colonies or of any protectorate or United Kingdom trust territory by reason of anything done or omitted in any country mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act or in Eire or in any foreign country, unless—

(a) the act or omission would be an offence if he were an alien: and
(b) in the case of an act or omission in any country mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act or in Eire, it would be an offence if the country in which the act is done or the omission made were a foreign country:

§ Provided that nothing in this subsection shall apply to the contravention of any provision of the Merchant Shipping Acts, 1894 to 1938.

§ (2) Subject to the provisions of this section.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
For the reasons which the Lord Chancellor has given, I think this Amendment is an improvement upon the clause.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), after "protectorate" to insert: "or United Kingdom trust territory." The noble and learned Viscount said: This is an Amendment to add "or United Kingdom trust territory." 1054 It is designed to put such territories in the same position as Protectorates, which they resemble in their relationship to the United Kingdom. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2 line 24, after ("Protectorate") insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2 line 25, at end insert ("enactment or").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2, line 31, after ("Eire") insert ("who are not British subjects").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 4 [Citizenship by birth]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM moved to delete "citizen," (where that word first occurs), and to insert "British subject." The noble Lord said: This is consequential upon the Amendment which your Lordships have already carried and, therefore, I do not think it requires any argument. It carries with it the assumption that the title of Part II will be altered. It roads at present: "Citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies" and, in conformity with the Amendment already carried, it will read: "Status of British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies," and in the sub-title "Status by birth or descent," and so on throughout Part II. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 2 line 40, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord, Altrincham.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
So long as it is plainly understood that I do not in any shape or form assent to the principle behind this Amendment (which is something to which I am violently opposed, and the effect of which I think has been to a large extent to play havoc with this Bill), and so long as my acceptance of this Amendment will not be used in evidence against me, I will not raise any objection to this or to any 1055 of the succeeding Amendments in this connection, if the noble Lord assures me that they are consequential.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
I am very glad to give that assurance.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 5 [Citizenship by descent]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
The next Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 3, lines 4, 8, 10, 30, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY
May I ask a question at this point, with regard to this continued substitution of British subject for citizen? It seems to me that it is quite contrary to what was said by the noble Lord—for whom as a great Imperialist I have the greatest respect—on a previous occasion. May I quote his words to the Committee? The word 'subject' is also bound up with British, and is rather liable to misinterpretation. It gives a sense of being subject to Britain, and, of course, that is the last kind of thing we would wish to perpetuate. For my part, therefore, I am glad that we are not going to insist upon 'British subject' as a world-wide description of the lieges of the King. I think we need another term at the present time. I should like to see the term 'British subject,' and certainly the term 'British citizen,' confined to those who are really inhabitants by nature, by adoption, or by naturalisation, of the British Isles.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
The noble Earl has quoted from a reference to an Amendment which was announced in terms by the Lord Chancellor during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. It was an Amendment which was designed to give an alternative to India and Pakistan and other Dominions which might be of that mind—an alternative to their people calling themselves British subjects, the alternative being: "Citizens of the Commonwealth." On the Second Reading, in the words which have been quoted and by which I stand, I said that that seemed to me a sound Amendment and that I was entirely in favour of it. I remain of that opinion. But that matter has nothing whatever to do with this Amendment, which refers entirely to British subjects of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth.

1056

THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY
We have been hearing that all through the evening.

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 6 [Registration of citizens of countries mentioned in s. 1 (2) or of Eire and female British protected persons married to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These are also consequential Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 3, lines 37 and 41, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
The next Amendments are also consequential, but I would like to add to them an Amendment at line 8. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 4, lines 6, 8, 10, 14, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 7 [Registration of alien women married to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and of minors]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These Amendments, too, are consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 4, lines 18, 19, 21 and 26, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 8 agreed to.

§ Clause 9 [Effect of registration as a citizen]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
This is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line.2, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.

1057

§ Clause 10 [Naturalisation of aliens and British protected persons]:

§ LOUD ALTRINCHAM
This, of course, is also consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 5, line 12, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 11 [Power to specify citizens by Order in Council on incorporation of territory]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These Amendments, again, are consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 5, lines 23 and 25, leave out ("citizens") and insert ("British subjects").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 12:

§ British subjects before commencement of Act becoming citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies.

§ (5) A woman who was a British subject immediately before the date of the commencement of this Act and has before that date been married to a person who becomes, or would but for his death have become, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of any of the foregoing provisions of this section shall on that date herself become such a citizen.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These are consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 5, lines 30 and 34, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
The next are also consequential Amendments, but to the lines on the Paper I would like to add also lines 31 and 33.

§ Amendments moved— Page 6, lines 6, 11, 17, 19, 20, 24, 29, 31 and 33, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

1058

§ 9.25 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY moved to add to subsection (5): Any person who is deprived of, or loses, his citizenship of a Commonwealth country, including Eire, by reason only of becoming or being a British subject, should have the right to become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies

§ The noble Earl said: The words I propose to add are to safeguard any person who becomes a British citizen and may suffer by doing so. As I understand it, this country is going to set an example by passing this Bill, and others are supposed to follow. We hope that they will follow as intended, but suppose that they do not. Already one Dominion—I refer to Eire—have a clause in their Act which says that a person becoming a citizen, of another country must cease to be a citizen of Eire. Suppose that is done, do we not wish to extend some asylum to the man who wishes to remain a British subject? We can do that only by adding the words I propose. If he becomes a British subject and not a citizen of any British Dominion, he should become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 6, line 31, after ("citizen") insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Cork and Orrery.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I do not want to go back to the old controversy, but I should like to say that I regret the use of the words "British subject" as by their necessary context they are a term which has no local habitation and which applies to the whole world-wide Commonwealth. One of the reasons why I object so strongly to the disastrous Amendment which was carried is that we are isolating the words "British subject" and giving them a local habitation so that they apply to the United Kingdom and Colonies only. I have given my reasons for thinking that this is a great mistake. On this Amendment, however, I am frankly in a difficulty. I am sympathetic with it, but the Bill has been so completely altered that at the present moment I am not quite sure where I stand with regard to it. If we had carried through the Bill in accordance with the agreement with the Irish people, I was going to say it would be wiser not to insert this Amendment. I agree that if that happened we would have to legislate on the lines which the 1059 noble Earl has suggested. But I am afraid that if we legislate now we might put nasty ideas into their heads, to use a colloquial phrase, and it seems to me to be better not to say anything about it. But, because of the alterations, I do not know where I am. I would be grateful if the noble Earl would not press me now on this matter, on the understanding that I will discuss with him between now and Report stage and he will let me know what he would like me to do and I will see how far I can go. If the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, I will be very glad to discuss the matter.

§ EARL STANHOPE
I hope that when the noble and learned Viscount comes to discuss this matter with my noble friend, he will see that this Amendment does not come into operation until the man has ceased to be a citizen of Eire, or of whatever Dominion it may be. If that is done it would not very much matter about "putting ideas into their heads." I cannot see much danger in that direction.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The point I have been anxious to guard against is the word "becoming" in the Irish Statute. If a man simply "remained" a British subject, they could not say he had "become" a British subject and we would not have to operate the Amendment. But everything is in the melting pot and I will look at it again.

§ EARL STANHOPE
You never can tell what the Irish will do!

§ VISCOUNT SWINTON
I would not have intervened on this Amendment but because of an observation that fell from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—that in consequence of the Amendments that have been moved he did not know where he was. We do not find ourselves in that position. I would like to correct one point which, with great respect, we could not accept and regard as a statement of fact. It is that by virtue of the Amendments we have made we have given the term "British subject" a purely local habitation. We have done no such thing. We have preserved the nomenclature which has always existed, and we have gone no further to make that local than the Lord Chancellor himself has gone to make universal citizenship by making the terms 1060 "citizen of the Commonwealth" or "British subject" interchangeable.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
As the Lord Chancellor particularly challenged my action in this Amendment, I, too, would like to reply to what he said. It is not the fact that the Amendment which I moved, and which was carried by the Committee, in any way restricts the use of "British subject." On the contrary, it widens it. It gives any Dominion that chooses to take it the option of calling members of their community citizens or British subjects of that community, as they please. It, therefore, widens the use of the term "British subject," and preserves it for the United Kingdom and Colonies, which we regard as essential. It is not the fact that we are in any way restricting the use of that ancient and honoured name.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting. He obviously did not understand the point. The point is that he has invented the phrase "a British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies." The only British subject heretofore has been the British subject who owes allegiance to His Majesty, no matter in what part of the Commonwealth he lives.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
To use a phrase which the Lord Chancellor has used very often, let me try again. It is perfectly true that the term has not been used with a local connotation before, but that is forced upon us by the introduction of this Bill, which in any case we regard as extremely unfortunate. The difference between "British subject" and "citizen," which was clear when the Bill was first introduced, has now been completely removed by the fact that "citizen" is used for the species as well as the genus. If that is the case, we see no reason why "British subject" should not be used in both senses, too.

The EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY
I appreciate what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
The next four Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

1061

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 6, line 40, leave out ("citizens") and insert ("British subjects")

§ Page 7, line 5, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject")

§ Page 7, line 8, leave out ("citizens") and insert ("British subjects")

§ Page 7, lines 15 and 18, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to

§ Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 13 [British subjects before commencement of Act becoming citizens of United Kingdom and Colonies]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These are also consequential Amendments. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 7, lines 22, 23, 26, 27, 33, 36, 37, 39 and 41, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 14 agreed to.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM moved, after Clause 14 to insert the following new clause: .A woman who, being a British subject, marries after the commencement of this Act a national of a foreign country shall nevertheless retain her British nationality, provided that, if she makes at any time after the marriage a declaration, in the prescribed form, of renunciation of British nationality, the Secretary of State shall cause the declaration to be registered, and upon such registration she shall cease; to be a British subject.

§ The noble and learned Viscount said: I can move this Amendment very shortly. It has relation to two points. The first is to make it clear to the reader of the Bill that women who, being British subjects, marry after the commencement of the Act, shall, nevertheless, retain their British nationality. The trouble with regard to that is that there is nothing in the body of the Bill that contains that provision. I must admit that I read the Bill through three times before I discovered that this would probably be the effect, by virtue of the provision to strike out of the Bill the Act of 1914, to which reference has been made several times already. My desire is to clarify the matter. Marriage, and nationality on marriage, is a very important thing to many people. I am not sure that local solicitors, for instance, would quite follow the way in which the 1062 provision that a married woman shall retain her nationality could be derived from the Bill. The position with regard to repeals is that no repeal re-enacts any previous Act whatsoever. It stands by itself, the previous Acts are gone, and the repeal, therefore, does not touch them. It may be that the Common Law of England would step in there and say that, the nationality of the married woman being British, it would remain British, but it is most desirable that it should be mentioned clearly in the Bill. The Amendment only carries out the effect of the Bill as we know it from the accompanying Paper, and I only want to make the matter perfectly clear.

§ So much for the first part of the proposed Amendment. The second is again a somewhat curious point. I want to make it clear that a woman can, if she likes., make a declaration in the prescribed form (which follows Clause 19 of the Bill) that she renounces her British nationality. That is often essential in the case where the marriage is to a man who intends to live abroad in some country where a foreign person—which would be his wife, if she were still British—would be subjected to all sorts of local provisions. For instance, in the case of war, it might be that she would be interned, if she retained her British nationality. There are other very awkward things that might happen in certain countries. We need not necessarily go to Russia as the place of residence, but one can realise how very awkward it would be to be a British subject in Russia, married to a Russian. There would be divided nationality, and possibly it would be necessary to send any children back to England for education. For that, there would have to be a visa permitting them to leave the country. That applies not only in Russia but in other countries, and matters would be exceedingly difficult.

§ Clause 19, which we shall come to, almost covers this point. The objection to that clause, however, is that it applies only to citizens—or whatever they may be called—of the United Kingdom and Colonies of full age and capacity. Therefore, the case of a young woman of seventeen who marries here would not come within Clause 19. I thought it desirable that there should not be difficulty about such cases. I am not in the least objecting to the retention by a married woman 1063 of her nationality—by all means let her keep it. All I am saying is that it is most desirable that she should have an option as to whether she will take her husband's nationality, or whether she will retain her own. I may add that all the civilised countries with regard to whom I have made inquiries and who have the rule about retention of nationality in the case of marriage to a foreigner, have given the married woman a right to opt to take the nationality of her husband.

§ I have here—only I do not want to detain the Committee—extracts from the law of France and also from the law of the United States upon this subject. Both those countries, in effect, do what I am seeking to do by this proviso; that is to say, they make it quite clear that wives can opt to take their husband's nationality immediately after marriage. It may not seem a very important matter to your Lordships, but I assure you it is very important to a certain number of people. It so happens that I know quite a number of misguided ladies who have married foreigners, and I am deeply concerned that when that takes place in the future there should not be any undue hardship inflicted on them. Let them have a complete right to keep their British nationality if they want to. Let them also have a right, immediately after the marriage or at any later date, of ceasing to be British subjects. As I understand it, Clause 19 permits the renunciation of citizenship in a number of cases. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 5, at end insert the said clause.—[Viscount Maugham.]

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
In the first place, as a matter of drafting, I am not quite sure that the noble Viscount conveys his meaning in this particular form. He says: A woman who, being a British subject… Now the whole scheme of the Bill is that we are dealing with persons who are British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I suggest that the noble Viscount, as a matter of drafting, would probably consider putting in those words.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
Yes, certainly.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Supposing a Canadian citizen marries under the law 1064 of Canada, I do not suppose the noble Viscount would wish to make legislation for that.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
No.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The Amendment ought to be drafted with that limitation. My next point is that the proposed clause is wholly unnecessary. The Bill sets out all the ways in which you acquire British subjecthood and the ways in which you lose it—and marriage is not one of the ways. Therefore it is unnecessary to use that declaratory part, that she should retain her British nationality. The Bill says that she gets it, so long as she is born here, or whatever the circumstances are, and it does not provide that she loses it. For that reason the first part is wholly unnecessary.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
Except for the question of full age.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The noble Viscount made a point with regard to Clause 19. I shall be prepared between now and the Report stage to consider an Amendment to Clause 19 and to deal with the subject of the class of persons who are not of full age. I think we ought to extend the class, and I suggest that the right and convenient way is to deal with the point on Clause 19. I will undertake to consider between now and Report stage the necessary Amendment to that clause.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I am much obliged to my noble friend, and I will accept that offer, with this observation. I am not quite convinced that he is right as to its being clear that a woman who is a limited British subject and who marries a national in a foreign country nevertheless retains her British nationality. I am not quite sure, and I am rather emboldened in saying so by the fact that in the Legislatures of quite a number of countries I believe they have thought it necessary to declare directly that the woman will retain the nationality of the country in which she is married. After all, marriage is a very singular thing; a woman is supposed to lose some of her identity. I am not wholly satisfied, but I am not going to argue the point at present. I have my doubts, and I will ask the noble and learned Viscount to consider the matter and see whether it is really quite clear. I am inclined to think 1065 that the noble and learned Viscount is right, but I am not inclined to think that it is clear that he is right. I make that distinction. I would sooner make it perfectly certain by putting in the Amendment. After all, it is only a matter of some three lines of an Act of Parliament, and it will clear many doubts. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Clause 15 [Persons who have ceased to be British subjects by failure to make declaration of intention]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is merely a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 10, leave out ("only of his not having made") and insert ("of his failure to make").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment too, is drafting. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 12, leave out ("otherwise") and insert ("but for that failure").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, leave out ("never to have ceased to be") and insert ("then to have been").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause: (2) A woman shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if she would have been a British subject but for her failure to make a declaration of retention of British nationality notwithstanding that after she ceased to be a British subject she married an alien. The noble and learned Viscount said: The new subsection (2) is designed to cover the case of a woman who ceased to be a British subject by reason of failure to make a declaration of retention of British nationality after becoming of full age and subsequently marrying an alien and acquiring her husband's nationality on marriage. Her case is not covered by Clauses 14 and 15 as they stand, and the effect of the Amendment is to allow 1066 her to make the declaration in spite of the marriage and regain British nationality accordingly. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 14, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ VISCOUNT SAMUEL
Would the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor consider between now and the Report stage the wording of this subsection, and translate it into more simple English? I have read it over three or four times and I find it quite impossible to understand it as it is drafted. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor states quite clearly what the purpose in view is, but could he not word it so that ordinary people will more or less understand part of it?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
So long as I must not be taken to assent to the proposition that the noble Viscount is an ordinary person, I will gladly look into it and see if I cannot get some better words.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 16:

§ Persons who have ceased to be British subjects on loss of British nationality by parent. 4 & 5 Geo 5. c. 17.

§ 16.—(1) A person who eased to be a British subject under the provisions of subsection (1) of section twelve of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, by reason that he was a minor child of a person ceasing to be a British subject may, if he would otherwise have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, within one year after becoming of full age or of the commencement of this Act whichever is the later, or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow, make a declaration in the prescribed manner of his intention to become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

§ (2) Upon the registration of a declaration made under this section by a person entitled to make the declaration, that person shall become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved at the beginning of the clause to leave out "A" and insert "If any" The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment and the succeeding Amendment which we can take together deal with a rather complicated and technical point. As Clause 16 stands, a person who has lost his British nationality under section 1067 12 (1) of the British Nationality Status of Aliens Act, 1914, by reason of the fact that he was a minor child ceasing to be a British subject, may become a citizen of the United Kingdom and the Colonies by declaration, only if he would otherwise have been such a citizen but for his loss of British nationality under that section. But if a person belonging by birth or descent to a Commonwealth country—for example, Pakistan—has lost his British nationality under Section (12) (1) of the Act of 1914, he will not be able to make a declaration under Clause 16 because he would not but for his loss of British nationality have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and he will not become a British subject without citizenship—or "British subject," as it now is—under Clause 13 because he was not a British subject immediately before the commencement of the Act. He will therefore have to remain an alien until Pakistan legislates.

§ We think that a person in his position ought to be allowed to regain his British nationality at once. The question of his citizenship—if I may use the term, I will use it collectively—will then be determined in the same way as that of other British subjects without citizenship. The new subsection (2) has a purpose similar to that of the new subsection (2) of Clause 15. It is designed to provide for a case where a woman, after losing her British nationality through her parents ceasing to be British when she was a minor, has married an alien and acquired his nationality; so that if she had not lost her British nationality during minority she would have lost it on marriage. As in the case of Clause 15, we propose to ignore the marriage in determining whether the woman would but for her loss of British nationality during minority, have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject without citizenship as the case may be. I can assure your Lordships that although it is very complicated there is nothing behind it, and I will do as the noble Viscount asked me on the last Amendment, and see if I cannot ask the Parliamentary draftsman to devise some rather simpler words which would bring about that which I am sure is a very laudable object. I beg to move.

1068

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 15, leave out ("A") and insert ("If any).—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I do not wish to add to the complications, and we are grateful to the Lord Chancellor for the extraordinarily clear statement he has made. But I think it may be assumed that a child is the child of two persons, both of the father and of the mother, and I would ask him to consider who is the person ceasing to be a British subject. It seems to me that under that phrase one of the parents might be a person ceasing to be a British subject and the other might not. Do not let me add to the complications, but is that phrase as it stands satisfied if that is true of one of the parents but is not true of the other? The Bill seems to be drawn on the principle that a child is the result of the activities of one person alone. This phrase occurs very frequently.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to omit all words in subsection (1) after "British subject" and the whole of subsection (2), and to insert: makes a declaration within one year after the commencement of this Act or after his attaining the age of twenty-one years, whichever is later, or such longer period as the Secretary of State may allow, of his intention to resume British nationality and if at the date of the declaration he would, but for the provisions of the said subsection (1), be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject without citizenship under section thirteen of this Act, the Secretary of State shall cause the declaration to be registered; and thereupon that person shall become a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or, as the case may be, he shall become a British subject without citizenship and the said section thirteen shall apply to him accordingly. (2) A women shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if she would have been a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British subject but for the provisions of subsection (1) of section twelve of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914, notwithstanding that after she ceased to be a British subject she married an alien. The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 18, leave out from ("subject") to the end of line 27 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

1069

§ Amendments moved— Page 8, lines 19, 24 and 27, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 17 agreed to.

§ Clause 18 [Application for naturalisation pending at the commencement of the Act]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
This is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 8, line 40, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 19:

§ Renunciation of citizenship for reasons of dual citizenship or nationality.

§ 19. If any citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies of full age and capacity who is also—

(a) a citizen of any country mentioned in subsection (2) of section one of this Act or of Eire; or
(b) a national of a foreign country,

makes a declaration in the prescribed manner of renunciation of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, the Secretary of State shall cause the declaration to be registered; and, upon the registration, that person shall cease to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies:

§ Provided that the Secretary of State may withhold registration of any such declaration if it is made during any war in which His Majesty may be engaged by a person who is a national of a foreign country.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These are consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 9, lines 7, 9 and 15 leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 19, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
I should like to ask one question on this clause. I realise, of course, that it is connected with Clause 14 which has already been passed, but the scheme, if I follow it rightly, is that a British woman who has married a foreigner before the Act becomes law is automatically returned to the position of 1070 being a British subject; and then, as I understand it, being thereby a citizen in some cases of the United Kingdom and Colonies and of full age and capacity and being also a national of a foreign country, I suppose under Clause 19 she would have the right to reject the effect of Clause 14. I think I follow that. I do not want to go back at all, but no doubt the Government will consider whether that is the best scheme. What occurs to me is this. Let us take the case of a British woman who has been married to a foreigner for, say, the last thirty years, who is living happily with him in his foreign country and, who for the last thirty years, has been of that foreign nationality and, it may be, has made friends, created a home and had children. I wonder whether the best system is really that the only way of escape from Clause 14, which operates automatically, is that the woman should take advantage of Clause 19 and get out of the benefit which Clause 14 gives her. The alternative would be to provide that a woman who has already been married to a foreigner should have the right to get out of the benefit which this Bill gives her in the sense that she should ask for the benefit if she wants it.
Without wishing to delay the Committee—especially as I think that this master arises more on Clause 14—I would venture to point out that if we are dealing with British women already married to foreigners, who by Clause 14 immediately become ipso facto British subjects, I would have thought that some rather awkward questions might arise—questions, if there was war, connected with the law of treason for instance, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor I am sure will appreciate. It is a question whether the system of the Bill ought to be that a woman who has already been married to a foreigner should have to get out of the operation of Clause 14 by making application under Clause 19 or whether a better system would not be that British women who have already been married to foreigners should have the option of claiming to resume their British nationality and should be registered when they so claim.
In our discussions here we are dealing with this complicated master in an atmosphere in which we more or less follow the Bill, but a British woman who has been married for thirty years to a foreigner cannot be expected to follow our 1071 discussions, and, in some cases, she will be greatly surprised to find that automatically, while, for the last thirty years, she has been a foreigner, she has now become British and can get out of it only if she makes use of Clause 19. I wonder which is the correct method. This is not a point which is in the least controversial, but I think the Lord Chancellor will see that there is real substance in it. Perhaps before we reach the Report stage the Government will consider which, in the circumstances, is the better method. The last thing we want is to put a lady who was married many years ago to a foreigner in the position which is quite unknown to her—indeed which she cannot be expected to know—that under Clause 14 she would be exposed to the operation of the law of treason for comforting an enemy if we had the misfortune to be at war with her husband's country.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
I wish to say only that I agree with the argument which has been put forward by my noble and learned friend, and I would also urge the Lord Chancellor to see if he cannot put the onus the other way round.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Having been asked to do so by two very distinguished predecessors of mine, I will of course look into this matter. At the same time, I am bound to say that I feel absolutely clear in my own mind about this matter. I have long regarded this as a blot on our legislation. I think the fact that we used to treat a woman rather as a sort of appendage of her husband—a person who, if her husband became a German also became a German, and if he became French also became French—was almost reducing the sex to the status of cattle. It is not treating them in such a way as to give them a perfect right to exercise their own wish with regard to what nationality they should have, which should not be interfered with by marriage. I must tell your Lordships that the women's societies—quite rightly I think—take the strongest view about this matter. If any of your Lordships contemplate making an Amendment you will of course put it down. I say, frankly, that I would much rather you put it down than I did. Though it is quite proper to look at the matter, I think we have here the right solution of a most difficult and thorny problem. But, of course, I quite 1072 realise the force of the observation the noble Viscount made.

§ Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 20 [Deprivation of citizenship]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
This Amendment is consequential, I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 9, line 33, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 10, line 20, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 21 [Deprivation of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies of persons deprived elsewhere]

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
These Amendments are consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendments moved— Page 10, lines 37 and 43, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 2, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 22 agreed to.

§ Clause 23 [Legitimated children]:

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
I beg to move this Amendment, which is consequential.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 16, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 24 agreed to.

1073

§ Clause 25:

§ Certificate of citizenship in case of doubt.

§ 25. The Secretary of State may in such cases as he thinks fit certify that a person, with respect to whose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies a doubt exists, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and a certificate issued under this section shall be conclusive evidence that that person was such a citizen on the date thereof, but without prejudice to any evidence that he was such a citizen at an earlier date.

§ LORD ALTRINCHAM
This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 11, line 37, leave out ("citizen") and insert ("British subject").—(Lord Altrincham.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ On Question, Whether Clause 25 shall stand part of the Bill?

§ LORD DU PARCQ
I had thought that one of my noble and learned friends would put down an Amendment to this clause. I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to consider this point between now and the Report stage, because it seems to me that there difficulty will arise. The clause may mean, but does not say, that on the application of a person about whose citizenship there is doubt the Secretary of State may make an order. Apparently the Secretary of State may make an order without such application or make it very much to the detriment of the person concerned, but, when the Secretary of State has made it, no court can decide to the opposite effect. Property and other rights may be affected. There may be a complete answer to this point, but I raise the matter so that it may be considered.

§ VISCOUNT MAUGHAM
In reference to the latter part of the suggestion of my noble and learned friend, the words "shall be conclusive evidence" should be limited, should they not, by words saying "excepting fraud" If you imagine fraudulent statements being made to the Secretary of State which result in a certificate which may affect property, it may well be necessary to say that it should be ascertained whether the certificate was obtained by fraud.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The questions raised by my noble and learned friends merit consideration, and I will be glad to consider them between now and the Report stage.

1074

§ Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clauses 26 to 30 agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 30 to insert the following new clause:

§ Assimilation of status of natural-born and other British subjects under existing enactments. .For the purpose of assimilating the rights and liabilities of natural-born and other British subjects under the enactments specified in Part I of the Third Schedule to this Act, those enactments are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of that Part. The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment, which should be read with the Amendment to page 22, line 2, is designed to assimilate the status of natural-born and other British subjects—for example, naturalised subjects, under existing enactments. The older Acts, for instance, the Act of Settlement provides that: No person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland or Ireland or the dominions thereto belonging (although he be naturalised or made a denizen, except such as are born of England parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council or a member of either House of Parliament.… That was the old law. The Naturalisation Act of 1870 did away with that distinction—or rather, it did not do away with it; it did not repeal it, but it treated natural born and naturalised British subjects on the same basis. So did the Act of 1914, which repealed the Act of 1870. But there was still enough doubt and complication left as to where this matter stood to enable an argument to be raised on the matter. It was raised, in fact, shortly after the First World War, in a case which we all remember, as to whether a Privy Councillor was properly appointed by reason of the Act of Settlement, or whether the provisions of the Act of Settlement had been repealed by the 1870 and 1914 Acts. This clause is designed to make it quite clear that if we naturalise somebody, his rights are just the same as though he were born a British subject. It puts the controversy at an end, and I commend the Amendment to your Lordships. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— After Clause 30, insert the said new clause—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
If I may say so, in a sentence, the Lord Chancellor is 1075 perfectly right. It is a very important principle of our law of nationality that, if we choose to naturalise a person, that person from that time on is in exactly the same position as though he were natural-born. That is really the principle, and I am glad the Lord Chancellor has moved this Amendment.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 31 [Interpretation]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 27, leave out ("in respect of which") and insert ("administered by the Government of any part of His Majesty's Dominions in accordance with").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The next is also a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 15, line 28, leave out from ("Nations") to the end of line 29.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.

§ Clause 32:

§ Application to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

§ 32. This Act shall extend to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as if those islands were colonies; and the expressions "United Kingdom and Colonies" and "colony" shall be construed accordingly.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR had given Notice that he would move to leave out Clause 32 and to insert the following new clause:

§ Channel Islands and Isle of Man.

§ ".—(1) References in this Act to colonies shall be construed as including references to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; and in its application to those Islands this Act shall have effect as if references to the Governor included references to the Lieutenant-Governor,

§ (2) A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies may, if on the ground of his connection with the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man he so desires, be known as a citizen of the United Kingdom, Islands and Colonies." The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment is to deal with the difficulties which inhabitants of the Channel Islands would feel if we did not put in some Amendment on these lines. Of course, it is wrong to describe the Channel 1076 Islanders simply as though they were British subjects of the United Kingdom and Colonies.

§ First of all, the Islands are not part of the United Kingdom; they are part of the old Duchy of Normandy. I suppose they can be claimed to be older penates of the Crown than this country itself. If they can claim it, I am sure they do. A doubt has also been expressed as to whether the Lieutenant-Governors in Jersey and Guernsey are really covered by the definition of "Governor" in Clause 31. I am sure we should all want to use some phraseology appropriate to the very honourable degree and estate which the Channel Islanders have. I understand—the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, will be able to confirm this—that the Channel Islanders are happy about the new form of words. I had better move subsection (2) of the Amendment in the altered form. I must not now say, "A citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies". I had better move it in the form of "A British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies". With that emendation, which for the moment I accept, I beg to move the Amendment, which I commend to your Lordships.

§ Amendment moved—

§ Page 18, line 1, leave out Clause 32 and insert the following new clause—

§ (".—(1) References in this Act to colonies shall be construed as including references to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man; and in its application to those Islands this Act shall have effect as if references to the Governor included references to the Lieutenant-Governor.

§ (2) A British subject of the United Kingdom and Colonies may, if on the ground of his connection with the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man he so desires, be known as a British subject of the United Kingdom, Islands and Colonies."—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ LORD DU PARCQ
I rise not for any controversial purpose—that would be impossible after what the Lord Chancellor has said—but to say, as a Channel Islander in your Lordships' House—I think the only one, at any rate this evening—that this Amendment will be very much welcomed by those in the Islands who have given attention to this matter. It is, one may frankly admit, a matter of sentiment. I do not know that it will make any great practical difference to myself as "a citizen of the United Kingdom Islands and Colonies." I do not propose to enter my description in 1077 that form on the hotel register, nor do I expect, when any of your Lordships are writing to me, you will put it after my name on the envelope. It is a matter of sentiment and, as I think the debate has shown to-night, these matters of nationality are bound to be matters of sentiment. But that is not in the least to say that we in the Channel Islands would have felt happy if we had been told merely that the Act was to extend to us as if we were Colonies. We have the greatest respect for the Colonies, but a Colony is exactly what we are not. Your Lordships know as well as I do that, so far as colonisation was done, it was done by us with, if I may say so, considerable success.

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 33 [Short title, commencement and repeal]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This and the succeeding Amendment are consequential on an Amendment which we have already inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line 10, after ("in") insert ("Part II of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Amendment moved— Page 18, line [2, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("Part").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.

§ 10.12 p.m.

§ First Schedule:

§ Part I [Qualifications for Naturalisation]:

§ Part II:

§ Oath of Allegiance.

§ I, A.B., swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Sixth his Heirs and Successors according to law.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This Amendment is designed more easily to enable those who have been rendering useful service to this country in the Sudan to have some concessions and facilities with regard to acquisition of British nationality. I think it right, although they are not serving in this country, that those people who have been working for us out there 1078 should have special concessions end special facilities for acquiring British nationality. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 19 line; 27, after ("territory") insert ("or in the Anglo-Egyptian. Sudan")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I beg to move the next Amendment.

§ Amendment moved— Page 20, line 3, after the second ("territory") insert ("or in the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ EARL STANHOPE moved to add to the Oath of Allegiance: and renounce for ever all allegiance to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty and particularly (naming the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty of which the alien is a citizen or subject). The noble Earl said: This part of the Schedule concerns the Oath which an individual has to take when he applies for naturalisation. Of course, this Bill necessarily bristles with dual nationality, but I see no reason why we should add to the number who can claim that advantage, or disadvantage, whichever one may choose to think it. I think the whole Committee have shown that they consider British citizenship, and the status of being a subject of the British Crown, a great privilege. I do not suggest that anybody who becomes a British citizen by naturalisation should have to pay the great price for it which, as we are told in Holy Writ, was the case in regard to Roman citizenship. But I do suggest that they should have to put off the "old man" before they can become the new creature.

§ What I mean by that is this. Friends of mine have told me that many years ago, when they had been for a considerable time in the United States, they found that it would be an advantage for them to take out United States citizenship. They then found that when they had to take the Oath of Citizenship in the United States they had to forswear allegiance to the King of this country and to England. That was more than they could stomach and, therefore, they remained British citizens. I think that as a rule the things we do in this country are better done than elsewhere, but there are cases in which foreign countries can give us an example 1079 worth copying. I think the United States of America has given us an instance. I believe that the United States Oath, as it used to be—and as I think it still is—is such that anybody who applies for naturalisation has to forswear allegiance to his former country; and that rule is sound in showing the applicant that he can no longer have a foot in both camps. It ought to be made clear that an applicant can become a British subject only after ceasing to be a subject of any other country. That is of value. It would not stop spying, but it would make it clear to anyone applying for naturalisation that he has ceased to be a citizen of any other country or to owe allegiance to anybody but the Sovereign of this contry. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 5, at end insert the said words.—(Earl Stanhope.)

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The form of Oath which we set out in the Second Schedule is substantially the same as that which is taken by Members of Parliament, by all the High Officers of State and certainly the same as that taken by the Lord Chancellor. The old Act, the Naturalisation Act of 1844, which was modelled on the form used in the time of James I, was much more dramatic. You had to undertake to "reveal to His Majesty all traitorous plots," and all the rest of it. The real objection to this suggestion, however, is this. The noble Earl seems to think that the fact that a man takes this rather more dramatic Oath will have some real effect on his dual nationality. I do not think it will have any effect at all, because the nationalities which he has will depend, of course, on the laws of the various countries, including the country of origin. For instance, some States have a law that any of their subjects who becomes naturalised automatically loses the nationality of his State of origin—whether he takes a dramatic or a dull Oath. The mere fact that he becomes a national of another country means that he ceases to be a national of his own country.

§ VISCOUNT SIMON
Is that not the law of this country?

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
Yes, it is our law. Other countries have the law expressed in a Latin maxim which may 1080 be interpreted as, "You cannot get rid of your nationality, however many others you take" The fact is that the form of Oath will be no bar. On the question of whether a man does or does not have a dual nationality, it seems desirable not to invent a special Oath but to adhere to the Oath used by Members of Parliament and by the High Officers of State. That being so, I think that the noble Earl's Amendment will not have the effect which he desires. Whereas in the old days we were all of us anxious to avoid dual nationality, by reason of all the complications which we thought might come from it, experience in the war has shown us that the disadvantages of dual nationality are nothing like so great as was thought. Whereas in the old days we took all possible steps to avoid it, we do not very much mind now whether it comes or not. Those are the reasons why we do not think it desirable to have a special form of Oath.

§ EARL STANHOPE
I am sorry the noble and learned Viscount is not prepared to accept my Amendment. I realise, of course, that it does not alter the law. What it does do is to bring home to the individual who applies for British nationality the fact that he has ceased to owe allegiance to anybody else. I am anxious that only those who are really British in thought and mind shall be allowed to be naturalised, and that they should get that into their heads before making the application. Any Oath on these lines helps in that direction. Of course, no member of your Lordships' House has ever owed allegiance to any other Sovereign than the Sovereign of this country, and I can well understand that even the noble and learned Viscount did not find it necessary to say that he had to forswear allegiance to anybody else. But that does not apply to a foreigner. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Second Schedule:

§ British subjects without citizenship under section thirteen of this Act.

§ 1. The law in force before the commencement of this Act relating to British nationality shall continue to apply to a person while he remains a British subject without citizenship by virtue of section thirteen of this Act as if this Act had not been passed:

1081

§ Provided that— (a) if he marries a British protected person or an alien, his wife shall not thereby become a British subject;

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in proviso (a) of paragraph 1, to leave out "British protected person or an alien, his wife" and insert: "a woman who is not a. British subject she" The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment deals with the transitory provisions. I believe that it is under Clause 13 of the Bill that there is doubt as to what nationality a person has. Perhaps his particular nationality status has not yet been approved by the necessary Act and, therefore, he is in a kind of state of suspended subjecthood and does not know quite what he is. That man may marry. The object of this Amendment is to say that, if a man is in that state of suspense, his wife does not automatically acquire British citizenship under this Bill. That is the reason and point of the Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Page 22, line 2, at end insert—

("PART I.
ENACTMENTS RELATING TO NATURAL-BORN BRITISH SUBJECTS.
Session and Chapter.	Short Title, etc.	Extent of Repeal.
11 Will. 3. c. 7.	An Act for the more effectuall Suppression of Piracy.	In section seven, the words 'naturall borne' and 'or denizens of this Kingdome'.
12 & 13 Will. 3. c. 2.	The Act of Settlement	In section three, the words from 'That after the said limitation shall take effect' to 'in trust for him' so far as they relate to British subjects and citizens of Eire.
18 Geo. 2. c. 30.	The Piracy Act, 1744	In section one, the words 'natural born' and 'or denizens'.
21 & 22 Vict. c 93.	The Legitimacy Declaration Act, 1858.	In section nine, the words 'natural-born'.
31 & 32 Vict. c. 20.	The Legitimacy Declaration Act (Ireland), 1868.	In sections one and two, the words 'natural-born' wherever they occur.
33 & 34 Vict. c. 77.	The Juries Act, 1870	In section eight, the words 'natural-born' in both places where they occur.
57 & 58 Vict. c. 60.	The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.	In section one, the words 'natural-born' in the first place where they occur, paragraphs (b) and (c) and the proviso.
15 & 16 Geo. 5. c. 49.	The Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925.	In section one hundred and eighty-eight, the words 'natural-born' wherever they occur.

PART II.

OTHER ENACTMENTS")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

1082

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 14, leave out ("British protected person or an alien, his wife") and insert ("a woman who is not a British subject she")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
This is a purely drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved— Page 21, line 29, after ("a") insert ("male").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.

§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ Third Schedule [Enactments repealed]:

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
The next Amendment is moved to cover the Amendments which we have already passed in the Bill. I beg to move.

§ Amendment moved—

1083

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR
I beg to move the remaining Amendments to the Third Schedule.

§ Amendments moved—

§ Page 22, line 3, column 2, after ("Title,") insert ("etc.")

§ Page 22, line 4, at end insert—

("4 & 5 Ann. c. 16.

An Act for the Naturalization of the Most Excellent Princess Sophia Electress and Dutchess Dowager of Hanover and the Issue of her Body.

The whole Act.")

§ Page 22, line 6, at end insert—

The Army Act.

In section ninety-five, the words 'natural-born'.")

§ Page 22, line 7, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 7 to ("the") in line 13 and insert—

		("Sections one to sixteen.
		In sections seventeen and eighteen, the words 'natural-born' wherever they occur.
		Sections nineteen to twenty-six.
		Section twenty-seven, except so far as it defines the expression 'alien'.
		In section twenty-eight,").

§ Page 22, line 14, at end insert—

		("The Schedules.
	The Air Force Act.	In section ninety-five, the words 'natural-born'.")

§ Page 22, line 19, at end insert—

("16 & 17 Geo. 5. c. 60.	The Legitimacy Act, 1926	In section two, the words 'natural-born'.")
		—(The Lord Chancellor.)

§ On Question, Amendments agreed to.

§ Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

§ House resumed.