Sitting of 17 July 1918

Preamble
The House met at a Quarter before Three of the clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.
PRIVATE BUSINESS.
South Metropolitan Gas Bill (by Order), Second Reading deferred till To-morrow.
BANKING AND RAILWAY STATISTICS (IRELAND).
Copy presented of Report on the Banking and Railway Statistics of Ireland for the years 1916 and 1917 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS.
  WAR.
    INDIA.

      HIDE TRADE (ENEMY INFLUENCE).
      Sir J. D. REESasked the Secretary of State for India whether Messrs. Ernsthausens, now Howiesons, formed a company after the War began, called East India Exports, Limited; whether such company has been taken over by or leased to Messrs. Grace Brothers and Company, who now seek a place on the British Hides Committee; and whether he will inquire into this matter, lest German influence, which formerly completely dominated this trade, be perpetuated in any direct or indirect manner?
      The SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Montagu): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I understand that Grace Brothers (India) have either acquired the business of East India Exports, Limited, or purchased the Howieson interest in that company. If my hon. Friend can supply me with information supporting the suggestion contained in the last portion of the question, I will consider whether any further inquiry is necessary.
      Mr. ROCH: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been called to a recent case in the Prize Court, in which the position of Grace. Limited, was considered?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Yes. Before this transaction took place we inquired from the Board of Trade and Foreign Office as to whether there was anything against this firm of Grace (India), and we were informed that there was nothing.
      Mr. ROCH: Has my right hon. Friend read the remarks of the President of the Prize Court with regard to this case?
      Mr. MONTAGU: This happened some time ago, but this firm is not that firm. This is a firm set up in Calcutta.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the activities of Howiesons (Ernsthausens) are viewed with the utmost suspicion and disapproval by the whole British commercial community in Calcutta, and would the right hon. Gentleman therefore strain a point and make inquiries, because it is a rather difficult matter?
      Mr. MONTAGU: It is difficult. The Government of India and the India Office are constantly endeavouring to set up a hide industry in India which will get rid permanently of all German connection, indirect or direct, but I am informed in this case that the business has been sold outright to this new firm.
      Mr. HOLT: Will the right hon. Gentleman carefully investigate the connection between this new firm and the firm of Grace Brothers, which has been commented upon in the Prize Court?
      Mr. MONTAGU: Certainly. In these matters our activities are only with Indian affairs, and we must take the advice of the Departments concerned, the Board of Trade and the Foreign Office.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so long as Howieson Ernsthausen, or Ernsthausen Howieson, is persona grata with the Government of India, the suspicions of the British commercial community in Calcutta will never be allayed?

  NATIONAL SHIPYARDS.
  Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, before new quarters for married men are erected at A.N.S. 3, Portbury, the existing buildings will be improved; whether blankets will be

  1015
  cleaned and renewed, having been in use since February; whether the huts will be made to exclude driving rain; and whether proper bath accommodation will be provided, as well as drainage to replace the bucket-and-ditch system now in use?
  The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Dr. Macnamara): The existing quarters at the Portbury National Shipyard have not yet been completed. The erection of these huts was expedited as much as possible in order to avoid putting the men under canvas, and for this reason the plastering of the exterior of the huts was postponed. This is now in hand and will be completed before the end of the summer. As regards the second part of the question, a cleanser and disinfector has been installed in the camp, and all blankets are being cleaned and renewed regularly. Additional baths will shortly be completed, and will give bathing facilities far in advance of the number of men now quartered at Portbury The latrines provided are the same as those to be found in the majority of military camps throughout the country, but a drainage scheme for the whole camp is well in hand and, it is anticipated, will be completed within a month or six weeks.
  Sir CHARLES HENRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the date when Mr. Charles Payne was appointed as Director of Shipbuilding at the national shipbuilding yards; whether this gentleman is at present at those yards; if not, when it is intended that he shall take up his work there; whether his entire time will be devoted to the shipbuilding at the yards; and what is his remuneration?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Mr. Charles Payne was appointed Director of Shipbuilding for the National Shipyards on the 3rd July, assuming duty on the same day, and is at present engaged in making the necessary arrangements in the locality in readiness for the time when actual ship construction shall commence. His whole time will be given to his duties in the national yards, and he will be concerned with all matters pertaining to the construction of ships. As regards remuneration, he will receive no salary from the Government, but will receive the usual travelling and subsistence allowances which are drawn by other persons who are serving the Government in an honorary capacity.
  Sir C. HENRY: Does not my right hon. Friend consider it premature to employ this gentleman's valuable services when the yards are not constructing?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No; we cannot have a more expert authority, and he is well employed in getting ready for the time when shipbuilding will commence.
  Mr. HOLT: Is Mr. Payne a salaried servant?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: He is managing director of Harland and Wolff, of Belfast.
  Mr. PRINGLE: How are Harland and Wolff to get on without a managing director?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: That is a question for them.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it intended that Harland and Wolff are to take over the national shipyards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No; but we are very glad to get this gentleman's services.
  Sir C. HENRYasked the First Lord of the Admiralty if he will state the number of the drawing staff and technical staff from Messrs. Harland and Wolff that have been brought, or which it is intended to bring, to the national shipbuilding yards; what is the estimate of the remuneration of this staff; and whether they give their whole services to the national shipbuilding yards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No drawing office staff has so far been brought to the national shipyards from Messrs. Harland and Wolff, nor is it intended to transfer any such staff. It is, however, proposed that two technical assistants shall be lent to the national yards by this firm, together with a few clerical assistants who have complete knowledge of shipbuilding methods. As in the case of Mr. Payne, it is not intended that they shall receive any payment from the Government with the exception of the usual travelling and subsistence allowances. The drawing office work in the preparation of plans for the "N" ships is being carried out at Messrs. Harland and Wolff's, Belfast, as they are the leading builders of this type of ship, which is to be constructed in the national yards. This work for the "N" ship is being undertaken by Messrs. Harland and Wolff in the same way that other shipbuilding firms in the country have prepared plans for other types of ships, and will, of course, be paid at the usual rate.
  Mr. ROCH: In the circumstances is it not better to hand these yards outright to Harland and Wolff, seeing that they cannot be run without their staff?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: No. They are national shipyards, and it is not intended to hand them over to a private firm.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the fact that these officials of the national shipyards are salaried servants of Harland and Wolff, so that they will be under the management of Harland and Wolff. Would it not be better to have an honest transaction?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: There are the managing director, two technical assistants, and the clerical assistants. The drawing staff continue to work for Harland and Wolff.
  Mr. ROCH: Are there any other persons employed in any managing capacity except from Harland and Wolff?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Certainly. There are certain Admiralty officials and the Royal Engineers.
  Sir C. HENRY: Have any other shipbuilding firms been invited to offer their services in connection with these national shipyards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I cannot answer without notice, but I would point out that this type of fabricated ship is a ship which Harland and Wolff are particularly well qualified to build.
  Mr. G. LAMBERT: Is it not a fact that Lord Pirrie is endeavouring to bring some sort of success to this rather disastrous national experiment?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: Assuming that is so, I do not know there is any objection to be taken to that.
  Mr. KINGasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, after months of excavations for the sites of two slipways at the Portbury national shipyard, several thousand tons of stone were laid for foundations; and whether these sites were then filled in again because in the hurry and alteration of plan the work which took months to achieve was found to be useless or had to be abandoned?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I have caused careful inquiries to be made, and can find no foundation whatever for the suggestions—
  1018

  (1) That after months of excavations for the sites of two slipways at the Portbury national shipyard several thousand tons of stone were laid for foundations;

  (2) That these sites were then filled in again because in the hurry and alteration of plan the work which took months to achieve was found to be useless or had to be abandoned.

  I think I am entitled to ask the hon. Member to give me the ground upon which these suggestions are made.
  Sir R. COOPER: Is it not a fact that the first scheme for Portbury has been abandoned and a great deal of loss of money caused thereby?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I am not aware of that.
  Mr. KING: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this Portbury yard is in my Constituency, and that I get a great many complaints with which I do not trouble him?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: I believe it is in North Somerset, but that does not necessarily make the allegations true.
  Mr. KING: Does it not show that I am a little nearer at home there than are the Admiralty?
  Mr. MALCOLM: Will the right hon. Gentleman decline to answer questions which give the names of the national shipyards?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: They have been very generally stated for a long time.
  Mr. PRINGLE: They have been announced by the Admiralty themselves.

  NAVAL SURGEONS.
  Major NEWMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he will say what response has been obtained to the recent Admiralty invitation to the temporary surgeons to join the permanent list of the Royal Navy?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The actual number of applicants to transfer from the temporary to the permanent list of the Royal Navy since the promulgation of the Order is eighteen, and of these fifteen will probably be eligible.
  Major NEWMAN: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell me how many of these temporary surgeons there are in the Navy at present?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a question down.
  Major NEWMANasked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction that prevails among members of the permanent medical service owing to the fact that surgeons are now doing the duties formerly carried out by fleet and staff surgeons without extra pay or acting promotion as in other branches of the Service, and that the large influx of temporary surgeons has not reduced the time served for promotion in the permanent service; is he aware that when similar conditions prevailed in the Royal Army Medical Corps all subaltern officers of the permanent list were promoted forthwith; and what does he propose to do to remedy these grievances?
  Dr. MACNAMARA: The Admiralty is not aware of any dissatisfaction in this respect, nor has any previous representation on the subject been received. The whole question of pay, prospects, and other matters in connection with the medical branch is now under the consideration of the Board of Admiralty. This particular question of acting rank will also be dealt with. The influx of temporary surgeons has no influence on the conditions of promotion in the permanent service. I note the reference to what occurs in the Royal Army Medical Corps; but the case of subaltern officers in that corps does not form a parallel, as the Royal Navy officers affected are of the relative rank of captain or above.

  SOUTH PACIFIC ISLANDS.
  Mr. KINGasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether civil administration has been, or will shortly be, established by Japan in the South Pacific Islands in Japanese occupation; and whether the British Government or the Government of Australia was consulted on this subject before a decision was taken?
  The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Balfour): His Majesty's Government have no information on the subject.

  RIGHT OF SEARCH (DUTCH CONVOY).
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Netherlands Government fully understands that the right of visit and search will unquestionably be exercised in reference to all the ships of the Dutch convoy on the homeward voyage or any voyage subsequent to the arrival of the ships in the Dutch colonies?
  Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir. The correspondence recently published should leave no room for doubt on this point.
  Commander BELLAIRSasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether there is any tendency to a circle of requests for immunity for armed convoys on the part of other neutrals in consequence of what has happened in connection with the Dutch convoy; and whether, if such suggestions, requests, or demands in future are proffered, they will be met in accordance with the well-known judgment of Sir Walter Scott in 1799 in the case of the Swedish convoy?
  Mr. BALFOUR: No such requests have reached His Majesty's Government, and, as explained in the recent communication to the Netherlands Government, they could not be entertained.

  MILITARY SERVICE.

    AGREEMENT WITH ITALY.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether a convention has been entered into with Italy as to the conscripting of British nationals in Italy and Italian nationals in this country; and, if so, will he give the date of the convention and the effect of it with reference to compulsory service of non-naturalised Italians in this country?
    Mr. BALFOUR: Yes, Sir; a military service agreement with Italy was signed on 11th December, 1917. It was laid before Parliament on that date.

    MILITARY WORKS, CIPPENHAM.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been drawn to the case of a French polisher who applied to his tribunal for exemption on the ground that he was working on the new military works at Cippenham, Slough, and that this was

    1021
    work of national importance, and during the hearing of which case a member of the tribunal, on learning what his wages were, stated that they were double the trade union rate of pay; whether the men in this work are, engaged by a sub-contractor; and whether he will make some special inquiries into the method of taking on men, in view of the statements made at the tribunal?
    The UNDERSECRETARY Of STATE for WAR (Mr. Macpherson): My attention had not been previously drawn to the particular case mentioned, but my hon. and gallant Friend has now furnished further details, and I will have inquiry made. Men are engaged through the Labour Exchange and are paid the authorised rates of wages. Only a few men are employed by a contractor.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Are these men considered to be engaged in work of national importance?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I think so.
    Captain CARR-GOMMasked whether the gravel at the Cippenham site, recently taken for a motor-spirit depot, is only suitable after treatment; and whether expensive plant has to be put up in order to treat it?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to my reply yesterday to a similar question by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Buckinghamshire.
    Captain CARR-GOMM: Might I have an answer to the last part of my question—whether a large plant has to be erected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I believe a certain amount of plant has had to be erected; whether expensive or not I cannot say.

    SALONIKA FORCES (LEAVE).
    Mr. JOWETTasked, concerning the case of a soldier who enlisted in 1914, served in Flanders for six months in 1915, and was drafted from there direct to Salonika, where he has suffered from three separate attacks of malarial fever, whether, having regard to the fact that the soldier in question has been on active service overseas for over three years without a leave and is now in a weak state of health, he is willing to recommend that an extended leave should be granted providing that the facts are as stated and if the necessary particulars for the purpose of identification are sent to him?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Soldiers serving at Salonika who have suffered from malarial fever are sent to this country, if such a course be considered desirable by the medical authorities. I am afraid that I cannot take any special action in a particular case such as that mentioned by my hon. Friend, but I can assure him that this man's state of health will receive every consideration, having regard to the facts of the case.

    MEDICAL GRADING.
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether, having regard to the number of men classified B3 who are being employed on merely nominal duties in the different camps throughout the country, and having further regard to the fact that most of these men could find useful employment suitable to their physical condition if they were at home with their families where circumstances could be made more favourable for them, he will arrange for the discharge of all B3 men who have served overseas?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: I am afraid that I cannot adopt my hon. Friend's suggestion. These men are employed on duties which result in the release of men in higher categories for service overseas.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUELasked the Minister of National Service whether a large proportion of the men who have been classified for military service in Grade 3 are so classified only in order that they may be available for re-examination, should a change in the national circumstances render a further review of manpower necessary; whether he is aware that there is much uneasiness among Grade 3 men, and particularly those engaged in one-man businesses, as to their position; and whether he can make any statement as to the prospect of their being called up for service?
    The MINISTER of NATIONAL SERVICE (Sir Auckland Geddes): Formerly a certain number of men were placed in Grade 3 in order to provide an opportunity for diagnosing the affection from which they were suffering. Under the instructions now current, a man who is temporarily unfit for posting on account of some acute transient affection (e.g., measles or scarlet fever), or whose case requires some special test, is not graded, but is notified that he must again attend for the completion of his examination and grading upon a definite date at an appropriate interval of time. In all other cases

    1023
    men are now placed at once in the grade for which they are considered physically fit. Men who are found to be permanently and totally unfit for any form of military service are given a final discharge.
    With regard to the second part of the question put by my right hon. Friend, a limited number of Grade 3 men of the old military age are at present required and are being called up for service in the Army and the Air Force, but only to fulfil certain definite duties and in accordance with certain specific demands submitted by the forces monthly. Grade 3 men of the new military age are not at present being called up for service. If it should be necessary to call them up at a later date they will be entitled to make application to the tribunal for exemption within seven days of the date of their calling-up notices. I would remind my right hon. Friend of the special instructions issued by the Local Government Board to tribunals with regard to Grade 3 men conducting one-man businesses. Under these instructions such men may be granted exemption conditional on their doing work of national importance, provided it appears to the tribunal that their business would be closed down, either at once or in the near future, as the result of their being taken for military service.

    RECRUITS OVER FORTY (TRAINING).
    Mr. PRINGLEasked the Undersecretary for War whether he can state the instructions given as to the training of men over forty-three years of age; and whether he has received any complaints as to the severity of the training to which these men are subjected?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: Recruits over the age of forty years are squadded and accommodated together, and are placed under senior instructors. The ordinary syllabus of training has been modified, and no physical training, as such, is given. Such physical exercises as are required are carefully graduated, and care is taken to ensure that these are within their powers. General Officers Commanding-in-Chief have been requested to give their personal attention to the training of these men and to see that they are sympathetically treated, and that more is not expected or asked of them than can reasonably be performed. The answer to the
    1024
    last part of the question is that I have received complaints from three different camps sent to me by my hon. and learned Friend.

    CLASS W ARMY RESERVE (SHIPBUILDING YARDS).
    Mr. JOWETTasked whether soldiers who have been released or transferred to Class W Army Reserve to work in shipbuilding yards at Barrow and elsewhere were promised, on being sent direct from the Army to their present work without being allowed an interval of leave, that they would get holiday leave and free railway vouchers as munition workers; whether he will insist on the promise being kept, notwithstanding the present restrictions on the issue of free travelling warrants, and especially in view of the fact that many of the men concerned are skilled or semi-skilled men employed as labourers and have been put to considerable expense for the purchase of working and other necessary civilian clothing on leaving the Army and cannot afford to pay railway fares to enable them to travel long distances to their homes when the works close for the annual holidays, which commence at the end of this month?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY of the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Mr. Kellaway): I am not aware of any special promise having been made to soldiers who have been released or transferred to Class W Army Reserve to work in shipbuilding yards. The transfer and allocation of such men is in the hands of officials of the Admiralty and the Ministry of Labour. I may, however, say that the restrictions that have recently been imposed on the issue of cheap week-end tickets to munition workers employed at a distance from their homes do not in any way affect the grant of free railway warrants to their homes to Army Reserve munition workers on the occasion of general holidays.

    POSTAL SERVANTS (TEMPORARY).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Postmaster-General whether, although many of the temporary postal servants have been in the employ of the Post Office for several years, it is the general policy to state, without exception, that their services can be dispensed with should they be required for military service; and whether, in order to maintain a nucleus of experienced servants, he will consider the

    1025
    advisability of regard being had to the claims of men whose temporary employment has been of so long duration?
    The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Illingworth): I fear it is quite impossible for me to say that any temporary postal servant is indispensable. That being so, I have no power to move in the direction suggested by the hon. Member.

    EXEMPTED MEN CALLED TO COLOURS.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether he is aware that his Department in Scotland is insisting on men joining up for the Army, authough tribunals and appeal tribunals have given exemption; and, in particular, is he aware that his recruiting office at Stirling has done this in several instances with Italians not naturalised in this country?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I have no information about the matters referred to in the first part of my hon. Friend's question, and should be glad if he would give me particulars of any specific cases he has in mind. I would remind the hon. Member that Italian subjects resident in Great Britain are liable to military service under the Italian Military Service Convention.
    Mr. WATT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that I handed the papers to his Under-Secretary some days ago?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am aware that the hon. Member furnished particulars in relation to the second part of the question, but I have no information about the first part.

    CONSCRIPTION CONVENTION.
    Mr. WATTasked the Minister of National Service whether his Department is recognising exemptions granted by British authorities in countries, such as Russia and Italy, with which conventions for conscription exist, when signed by the British Ambassadors there in the cases where the exempted men have now arrived home?
    Sir A. GEDDES: Certificates of exemption granted to British subjects by His Majesty's representatives abroad under Military Service Agreements with Allied States are only effective as a protection from military service while the holder continues to reside in the particular State concerned.

    WAR AGRICULTURAL VOLUNTEERS.
    Sir JOHN SPEARasked the Minister of National Service whether a man above forty-five who volunteers for work on the land in so doing becomes a Government employé; and, in case he contracts disease through exposure, such as pneumonia or consumption, and becomes permanently incapacitated from work, will he be compensated by the State, and if his illness so contracted results in death will his dependants receive a gratuity or pension?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am glad to have an opportunity of removing a possible misapprehension. A man who volunteers for work as a War Agricultural Volunteer or, I may say, as a War Work Volunteer, does not by so doing become a Government employé. The employer to whom he is allocated pays him his wages, and is in every sense his employer, with all the legal responsibilities which that implies.

    ENGINEERING APPRENTICES.
    Mr. TYSON WILSONasked the Minister of National Service whether apprentices to the engineering trade are being called up for the Army, leaving behind in the same workshops dilutees and Belgians of military age and fitness; if so, whether he has received any complaints in connection therewith; and whether, in view of the Government pledges, every effort will be made to ensure that men who have entered munitions work since August, 1915, and are of military fitness, shall be combed out before skilled men and apprentices in the various trades?
    Sir A. GEDDES: All recruiting from the engineering trade is governed by the Schedule of Protected Occupations. I am not aware of the Government pledges to which the hon. Member refers, but it is the general rule that, other things being equal, men fit for general service, who-have entered the occupation since August, 1915, are released before those of longer experience.
    A complaint has been received as to the retention of Belgians in one munitions establishment, and inquiries are being made into the circumstances. The total number of Belgians fit for service born later than 1879 employed in coded firms is only 250. Of these, two were born in 1898–99; fifty in 1895–96 and 1897; the remainder between 1894 and 1879. This

    1027
    small number of men is being retained in civil life for the time being on account of the importance of the work upon which they are engaged.
    Mr. WILSON: Could not the right hon. Gentleman give more definite instructions to his representatives in munition areas with regard to the combing out of men who have been sheltered in the shipyards and munition works before calling out the regular workmen?
    Sir A. GEDDES: There are most definite instructions, and the whole procedure is most elaborate.
    Mr. WILSON: They do not regard them.
    Sir A. GEDDES: Possibly the hon. Member refers to the clean cut, which cuts right across the others.

    FINLAND.
    Mr. WATTasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what facilities have been granted to Consuls and Vice-Consuls in Finland for the sending home to this country of their wives and children; and whether he can say what actual numbers of these families have been successfully got out of the country, and what numbers still remain?
    Mr. BALFOUR: There is only one Consular Officer of the Salaried Service in Finland at the present time, and his wife and family have been in England for some time past. I am not aware that any special facilities have been granted to the wives and families of the unsalaried officers. It is not possible to state the number of such families now remaining.

    GALLIPOLI OPERATIONS.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, being in possession of the views of the Army Council, he is conferring with the Dominion Prime Ministers on the subject of issuing a medal or ribbon to the troops who took part in the Gallipoli operations; and whether he can make a statement thereon?
    The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Hewins): The matter is being considered at the Imperial
    1028
    War Conference. I am not, however, in a position to make any statement at present.
    Mr. NEEDHAM: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the very widespread interest taken in this question by the people of this country, who are concerned as to the issue of it?
    Mr. HEWINS: I am aware of the interest taken in the question, but the matter is being considered by the Imperial War Conference.

    RAILWAYMEN'S CONVALESCENT HOME.
    Sir WILLOUGHBY DICKINSONasked the Under-Secretary of State for War whether the Railwaymen's Convalescent Home at Leasowe Castle, Cheshire, was commandeered for the purpose of training British soldiers; whether the use of it has been discontinued and it is now occupied by German prisoners; whether, when making this change, any regard was paid to the wishes of the railwaymen and their own needs for a convalescent home; and whether, if the latter desire it and the home cannot be used for training, it may be restored to its original use?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: It is necessary to make inquiries of the local military authorities to enable me to answer this question. This is being done, and I will communicate with my right hon. Friend as soon as possible.

    WARSHIP CONSTRUCTION.
    Mr. HOLTasked the First Lord of the Admiralty what proportion the warship construction for the first six months of 1918 bears to that for the first six months of 1917?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: It is manifestly not in the public interest to give the information.
    Mr. HOLT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider in what form he can publish a comparative statement of the total work done in the shipbuilding yards, so that we may know what they are doing?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: My hon. Friend knows that year by year we have published not detailed information—we cannot

    1029
    do that—but a summary in the Appropriation Account. Further, the whole of the details in question are in the hands of the Comptroller and Auditor-General for publication at the right time.
    Mr. HOLT: My right hon. Friend misapprehends. Is there not published monthly a comparative statement of merchant shipbuilding construction in the yards? He does not publish a comparative statement of warship construction at the same time, so that one may know how things are going on.
    Dr. MACNAMARA: That is perfectly true. I am afraid it is inevitable. We only give new merchant output. It would not be in the public interest to say how much naval construction and repair work is going on at the same time. I see no way out of that.
    Colonel W. THORNE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what the solid objections is to national shipyards?
    An HON. MEMBER: Owing to waste!

    NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
    Mr. PETOasked the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can now state that the pensions to dependants of officers of the mercantile marine who have lost their lives by enemy action at any time during the War while in the service and pay of the Admiralty and the disablement grants and allowances of such officers who have been wounded or injured will be placed upon the Service scale?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: As stated in the answers given to my hon. Friend on the 24th and 29th April last, it has been decided that the Service scales of pension are to be applied to officers and men (and their dependants) of the mercantile marine who have signed on, or may sign on, in the service and pay of the Admiralty for the period of the War in vessels to which the provisions of Section 90 of the Naval Discipline Act have been applied.
    It had been hoped that the duties of the Admiralty in this matter would have been, transferred to the Ministry of Pensions by now, but it is understood that difficulties have arisen as regards the powers to be obtained by the Ministry in order to legalise the new procedure. In the meantime, awards of pensions and disability allowances are being made by the
    1030
    Admiralty under the old scale. These awards will be revised as soon as possible with effect from the date already arranged.
    Mr. PETO: Will the date already arranged in every case be a date not later than the date when the injury was received or the death occurred?
    Dr. MACNAMARA: Yes; if the person concerned has signed on for the period of the War the date is the date back to which the actual payment will be made by the proper authorities.
    Major Sir HENRY HAVELOCK-ALLANasked the Financial Secretary to the War Office whether he is aware that Private Davis John, No. 410168, Royal Army Medical Corps, Territorial Force, who was admitted to hospital in April suffering from chronic rheumatism, has received no pay since that date; that his wife and three children are in need and that an insurance premium which has been kept up for fifteen years is in danger of lapsing; and if he will say whether he proposes to take any action in this case?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Forster): The approximate balance of pay due to the soldier at the end of June was remitted to his wife on the 11th instant.
    Sir J. D. REESasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions whether he is aware that Mr. W. H. Slack, a Woolwich examiner, who sustained compound comminuted fracture of both bones of the right leg at Chilwell factory in August, 1917, and has been under treatment till 20th June, 1918, when he was discharged from hospital on the ground that nothing more could be done for him, has not received full compensation due by the payments made up to 9th May, since which he has received nothing from Woolwich; and will he hasten a settlement, as Mr. Slack, who is a married man with a family, has been unable to undertake any work since the occurrence of the accident?
    The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of MUNITIONS (Sir Laming Worthington-Evans): From the date of the accident Mr. Slack received compensation at the rate of £2 1s. 1½d. per week under a scheme by which he is entitled to half his average earnings for a period of six months. This period expired on the 15th February, from which date he has now been paid compensation at the rate of £1 5s. per week. On the 9th May Mr.

    1031
    Slack had not received the full amount due up to that date, but this has since been rectified.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Prime Minister whether the Government have yet decided on their scheme for increased allowances to soldiers' wives and children?
    The following question stood upon the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. SNOWDEN:
    51. To ask the Prime Minister when the Report of the Cabinet Committee which has been inquiring in the question of separation allowances may be expected; and whether an opportunity will be given before the Adjournment to discuss the Government proposals?
    Mr. BONAR LAW(answering both questions): I hope the decision of the Government will be announced next week. Hon. Members will have an opportunity of discussion on the Vote of Credit to be moved before the Recess.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Minister of Pensions whether he will arrange for a copy of the revised pamphlet, "Soldiers' Pensions," to be distributed with each ring-paper for the information of dependants?
    The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Hodge): I am anxious that the revised pamphlet on "Soldiers' Pensions" should have as wide a circulation as possible among dependants, and I am inquiring whether this can best be obtained by the method of distribution suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Minister of Pensions, when endeavouring to meet by supplementary allowances the case of wives of serving soldiers who enlisted early in the War on the ground that wages then are not comparable with those now paid, whether he will also deal with the cases of dependants of unmarried soldiers on similar lines?
    Mr. HODGE: The question of allowances to the parents of unmarried soldiers is under consideration.
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Pensions Minister if his attention has been called to the case of John Franklin, who was discharged from the Mercantile Marine Reserve in March last as medically unfit; is he aware that this man has not been able yet to obtain any relief or pension
    1032
    pending settlement as to the particular Government Department that shall deal with similar cases; is he further aware that this man is unable to work and that, after having pawned all available articles to provide food for his wife and three children, he is now destitute; and will he give some immediate attention in order that this man may be able to provide necessities for his family until such time as the authorities have settled what Department is to undertake his and similar cases?
    Mr. HODGE: As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, certain classes of the Mercantile Marine Reserve are about to be given, in place of the compensation to which they are at present entitled, the same privileges in respect of gratuities, pensions, and allowances as men of the Royal Navy. The actual transfer of these classes of men to the books of my Department involves questions of considerable complexity, but it is not the fact, as my hon. friend appears to suggest, that in the meantime the men are being deprived of compensation from either Department. Arrangements have been made whereby the Admiralty continue to compensate on the existing basis subject to revision when the transfer is complete. In the case of John Franklin, the disability for which the man was discharged was found to be neither attributable to nor aggravated by service, and on the existing basis there is no claim for compensation. I am taking advice as to whether, pending my Department taking over these classes of the Mercantile Marine Reserve, cases like that of John Franklin, in which the disability is not connected with service to the State, can be considered for the award of a gratuity or temporary allowance.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: What are these men with starving families to do in the meantime?
    Mr. HODGE: I think the hon. Member is quite as capable as I am of answering that question.
    Mr. SMALLWOOD: No, I am not.

    CONSULAR SERVICE.
    Major GEORGE PEELasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether before the War Great Britain had 1,000 Consuls of whom 900 were Germans; whether there are now fifty-seven Consuls who are Germans; and, if not, whether he will state the correct figures?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND (Department of Overseas Trade): I am obliged to my hon. Friend for calling my attention to these figures, which are entirely erroneous. In 1913 there were 1,120 British Consular officers. Of these, 311 were in the salaried service and were, therefore, British subjects. Of the remaining 809 unsalaried officers, 454 were British subjects and 355 of foreign nationality. Of the 355 officers of foreign nationality, 37 were Germans and 13 Austro-Hungarians. On the outbreak of war the appointments of those Consular officers who were of enemy nationality ceased automatically, and there are at present no Consular officers of enemy nationality in the service.
    Mr. PRINGLE: How many of these British subjects were naturalised Germans?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I think I gave most of that information in the House a short while ago, but if my hon. Friend wishes to know, and puts down a question, I shall be glad to give it.
    Mr. A. P. WHYTE: May I ask whether the undertaking given by the Home Secretary in the Debate on enemy alien policy covers all those who are employed in the Consular Service, and the right hon. Gentleman's Department, too?
    Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Perhaps on that my hon. Friend will put a question down to the Foreign Secretary.

    PRISONERS OF WAR.
    Mr. ALBION RICHARDSONasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any, and what, restrictions have been imposed, and why, upon the sending of money to British prisoners of war interned in Holland?
    Mr. JAMES HOPE (Lord of the Treasury): This matter is complicated by questions of exchange and of food supply, and I prefer to make no statement on the subject until I have been able to discuss it with the delegates to The Hague Conference.
    Mr. PETOasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether he is aware that British and Indian prisoners in Turkey are suffering from the lack of proper dental treatment; and whether he will arrange for the Ottoman Government
    1034
    to be asked to allow dentists with European diplomas to visit the prisoners' camps?
    Mr. HOPE: The Netherlands Minister at Constantinople was asked last month to propose to the Turkish Government to enter into the same reciprocal arrangement with us for dental treatment of prisoners of war as is already in operation between the German Government and ourselves.
    Sir J. D. REES: Are there any dentists with European diplomas in Asia Minor?
    Mr. HOPE: If there are not, I do not quite know how they are to be got.

    AMERICAN ARMY (TRANSPORT).
    Colonel GRETTONasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Shipping Controller whether he is prepared to state the total number of American troops transported to France during April, May, and June, and the proportion of that number carried in British ships?
    The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of SHIPPING (Sir Leo Chiozza Money): The number of American troops transported from the United States to Europe in the months named were as follows:

    In the month of April, 117,212, of which 50,084 were carried in British ships.

    In the month of May, 224,345, of which 135,662 were carried in British ships.

    In the month of June, 276,372, of which 145,210 were carried in British ships.

    The aggregate for the three months is thus 637,929, of which 330,956 were carried in British ships. I may add that arrangements have been make by which we hope to carry even larger numbers in the near future.
    Mr. ALDEN: Can my hon. Friend say how many troops were lost in the carrying during the three months?
    Sir L. CHIOZZA MONEY: I have not the precise figure in regard to the 637,000 carried in the three months, but I can tell the hon. Member that from the beginning we have carried over 1,000,000 troops, and out of that number only 291 have been lost at sea.

    MILITARY HOSPITALS (CHEMISTS).
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked whether the revised rates of pay to chemists and dispensers in military hospitals promised in last March have been paid; what is the percentage of increase which was granted; and can he say how it compares with the increases given to civilian employés in the same hospitals?
    Mr. FORSTER: The increase has been paid and amounts approximately to 15 per cent. On the whole it compares favourably with the bonus given to civilian employés.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: Is that the increase promised in March to date back to January?

    DISTRICT WAGES COMMITTEES.
    Mr. WATTasked the President of the Board of Agriculture what was the method of appointing district wages committees in the various counties to deal with the question of agricultural wages under the Corn Production Act; who appointed the representatives of the labourers and who the representatives of the employers, and from what associations or bodies, if any, were they chosen; and is he aware that dissatisfaction exists because localities had not any opportunities of nominating any members?
    The PRESIDENT of the BOARD Of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Prothero): The representative members of district wages committees were appointed by the Agricutural Wages Board. Prior to the establishment of the committees, a notice was widely circulated through the Press and to all farmers' and labourers' organisations throughout the country inviting suggestions of suitable persons to serve on the district committees. Numerous suggestions were received, and a Selection Committee was appointed by the Wages Board to consider them. The employers' and workers' representatives on the Board submitted their respective nominations for each district committee to the Selection Committee, who recommended to the Wages Board the names of those whom they considered to be most suitable and representative.
    Mr. WATT: Are we to understand that the members of the district wages committees were nominated by the Wages Board, which in its turn were nominated by the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. PROTHERO: That is not quite the case. Out of thirty-nine members of the Wages Board thirty-two were representatives, partly elected and partly nominated. The district wages committees are selected out of the names submitted to them by the Selection Committee of the Wages Board.

    ALIENS.

      ENEMY PROPERTY.
      Major PEELasked the President of the Board of Trade whether there is any part of the Empire which has failed to make the usual return of enemy property located within that part of the Empire?
      The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Albert Stanley): Returns have been received by the Custodian from all parts of the Empire with the exception of Canada, Basutoland, Brunei, and Sarawak. Steps have been taken to obtain the missing returns.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have any steps been taken to obtain similar information from the occupied colonies, such as German East Africa?
      Sir A. STANLEY: I am afraid I cannot now give an answer to that.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the same policy to be pursued there?
      Sir A. STANLEY: Perhaps my hon. Friend will give me notice.

      SUBJECTS OF ENEMY STATES.
      Mr. WHYTEasked the Prime Minister Whether he will give an undertaking that, in any action taken against enemy aliens, persons who are technically subjects of one of the four enemy States but are actually known to be in sympathy with the Allies will suffer no hardship?
      The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Bonar Law): I can add nothing to what was said in Debate on this subject on the 10th July.
      Colonel WEDGWOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman see, if any special facilities are given to enemy aliens who are of a friendly race, that the same consideration is given to all those of the Jewish race who are also friendly to this country?
      Mr. BONAR LAW: I really cannot add anything to what I have said. The whole subject was very exhaustively dealt with by my right hon. Friend in the Debate.
      Mr. WHYTE: In view of the fact that this subject was lightly touched upon, is it not desirable, in order to allay the suspicions and fears of many of these people, that the Government should make an announcement at the earliest possible opportunity as to what has been their previous practice.
      Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, it is our intention to have an announcement made on the whole of this question without any delay.

    ROYAL AIR FORCE.
    Mr. NEEDHAMasked the Undersecretary of State to the Air Ministry whether he is thoroughly satisfied from experience as to the fastness of the new colour of the uniform recently authorised; and whether he is aware that it is not as useful a colour as khaki for hard wear, and that it will much sooner present a shabby and worn appearance owing to its lesser resistance to dirt and stains?
    Colonel GIBBS: Tests applied to the cloth for the new uniform for the Royal Air Force show that the dye stands exposure well, and that the cloth is capable of being easily cleaned. The colour was selected after full consideration as the best distinctive colour available.
    Mr. ROWLANDSasked the Undersecretary whether he is aware that an Order has been issued by the Air Minister that members of the Royal Air Force are not to wear chevrons, although qualified the same as the men in the other Services; and, if so, if he will state the reason for this Order?
    Colonel GIBBS: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on Monday to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Ipswich.
    Mr. ROWLANDS: May I ask whether the fact is that because dangerous flying is done by men at home as distinguished from men abroad some distinctive mark is not to be given to those who undertake dangerous work at home?
    Colonel GIBBS: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down another question.

    MUNITIONS.

      INVENTIONS DEPARTMENT.
      Captain WRIGHTasked the Minister of Munitions whether it is the practice of the Ministry to insist upon inventors who desire to submit their inventions and processes for approval and use in the national interest not only to furnish all information as to cost and construction to the Ministry but also to deposit the most detailed working drawings; whether engineers and others attached to the Ministry, whose official duty it is to examine into these inventions and processes, are allowed by the heads of Departments at the Ministry at the same time to try and design similar inventions and processes which might or might not prove more suitable and to apply for patents in their own names; whether many of these officials have been, and will again in normal times be, rivals and competitors of the inventors, being only temporarily employed by the Ministry; and, if so, whether he will explain how these practices tend to encourage submission to the Ministry of inventions and processes which might prove of great value to the nation?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: Inventors are not required by the Inventions Department to furnish detailed information of the kind indicated, but if they do so the manufacture and consequent trial is facilitated. As regards the second part of the question, it is the duty of all, whether officers of the Department or not, to point out any improvement possible in the invention that may be of value to the country. No patent is taken out by any individual attached to the Inventions Department. Any individual in another Department of the Ministry may be allowed to apply for a patent subject to the permission of the head of that Department, which permission is only unrestrictedly given when the invention is of no interest to the Government nor based upon information supplied to the Department confidentially. The answer to the third part would probably be in the affirmative in regard to some officials. There is no reason to believe that the present procedure discourages the submission of inventions of value to the nation.
      Captain WRIGHT: May I put before the hon. and gallant Member information which will show him that there is a great

      1039
      reluctance on the part of inventors to submit their inventions to the Ministry of Munitions?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: I shall be glad to consider any information which the hon. and gallant Member can supply.

      GUN-REPAIRING SHOP (FRANCE).
      Colonel GRETTONasked the Minister of Munitions if a gun-repairing shop, costing about £750,000, has been equipped in France; if the French authorities were previously consulted; and if the repairing shop in question is working and provided with the requisite labour?
      Mr. KELLAWAY: The proposal to which my hon. and gallant Friend refers was discussed but never carried out.

      CHURCH GRANTS.
      Mr. HOLTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Munitions the date of the Vote of Credit which authorises Grants to churches as desirable in view of the conditions created by the War?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: In the Vote of Credit dated the 12th November, 1914, and in Votes of Credit since that date, it is stated that the Vote is intended to cover not only the cost of naval and military operations, but also all expenditure which may be necessary or desirable in view of the conditions created by the War.
      Mr. HOLT: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the Vote of Credit or from the Treasury Minute as to the meaning of the Vote of Credit?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The quotation is from the White Paper headed "Vote of Credit"
      Mr. HOLT: Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the Vote of Credit as passed by this House?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: I believe it is exactly in these terms.
      Mr. HOLT: Will the hon. Gentleman look and ascertain, because, as a matter of fact, he is not?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: If the hon. Member knows, he does not need to ask me.
      Mr. KING: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that this matter has been raised before in this House; that, owing to the uncertainty whether certain expenditure could be undertaken, the words were changed at one stage; were not these Grants made before the change came in, and are they not, therefore, illegal?
      Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS: The hon. Member is right in saying that the words were changed. The first Vote of Credit was not in these terms. My answer said that the Vote of Credit of November, 1914, and all subsequent Votes of Credit, contained these words.

    ALLIANCE AEROPLANE WORKS.
    Mr. WALTER ROCHasked the Minister of Munitions if he can state the terms on which the Alliance Aeroplane Works of Messrs. Waring and Gillow have been taken over by the Government; if he can state the statutory or other authority under which such works were taken over; and whether it is his intention to take over any other establishments in the same manner and on, the same conditions?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The terms on which these works were taken possession of are still under consideration. Possession was taken under Regulation 8 of the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The question of taking similar action in other instances must depend on the facts of each case as it arises.
    Mr. ROCH: Do the Government contemplate purchasing this on behalf of the Government?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: I would rather make no statement while the question is under negotiation.
    Mr. ROCH: Is the same management to be retained?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: That also is a point with regard to which a definite answer cannot be given at the moment.
    Mr. ROCH: If nothing has been settled, why was it announced that they had been taken over by the Government?
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not a fact that this was a controlled establishment before, and has any difference been made by the announcement made by the Minister of Munitions?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: A substantial difference has been made. One result is that the men are now at work.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is there any difference in the management or control of this establishment, or was the announcement simply made for the purpose of getting the men back to work without making any alteration at all?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: The details are under consideration, and there will certainly be a difference made in the conditions.
    Mr. PRINGLE: When will the hon. Member be able to make a statement as to the change?
    Mr. KELLAWAY: If my hon. Friend will put down a question, I will endeavour to get the information.

    AERODROMES (IRISH LABOUR).
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that, while young men are being brought from Ireland to work in the building of aerodromes, older men with the necessary skill and capacity for the work are being taken into the Army; and whether, in view of the feeling aroused by this policy, some better co-ordinated efforts between the Departments concerned can be evolved for securing, on the one hand, the necessary men for the Army and, on the other, the requisite labour for war work?
    Sir A. GEDDES: My right hon. Friend has asked me to reply. I am not aware that young men are being brought from Ireland to work on the building of aerodromes. On the contrary, instructions were issued on 6th April, whereby no Irishman of military age is allowed to be engaged in Ireland for work in Great Britain unless he is engaged through an Employment Exchange for work in agriculture or is a discharged sailor or soldier not liable for further military service. Further instructions were issued last week to the effect that the liability to military service of Irishmen between eighteen and fifty-one years of age who come to work in Great Britain except under these conditions is to be enforced.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the last
    1042
    part of his answer refers only to men who are being brought over from Ireland in the future or whether it has any retrospective effect?
    Sir A. GEDDES: It has no retrospective effect in the case of men who have been brought over through Government agency for work of national importance. Irishmen who have come over on their own initiative without any arrangement being made have always been liable to be called up for military service under the Military Service Acts.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will not Irishmen be subject to the comb-out and the clean cut under the same conditions as Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I am afraid that there must be some misunderstanding with regard to the present practice, if I have understood my hon. and learned Friend's question correctly. Irishmen, as such, in this country are not entitled to special protection. They are British subjects. Irishmen brought over on an undertaking given by the Government receive the benefit of that undertaking. If it is impossible for them to continue in this country in fairness to other men of the same age, they are sent back to Ireland, where they resume their normal status.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman going to observe an undertaking in respect of Irishmen while he destroys similar pledges and undertakings given to Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen?
    Sir A. GEDDES: I know of no undertaking given to Englishmen, Scotsmen, and Welshmen which has been destroyed in connection with this matter of recruiting, but if my hon. and learned Friend has any case in point perhaps he will give me information about it.

    LEAGUE OF NATIONS.
    Sir W. DICKINSONasked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government has accepted a resolution in another place approving of the principle of a League of Nations; and whether he will give a day for this House to discuss a Motion to the same effect standing in the name of the right hon. Member for North St. Pancras and the hon. Member for the North-Western Division of

    1043
    Durham: ["That this House approves the principle of a League of Nations and commends to His Majesty's Government a study of the conditions required for its realisation."]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would not be possible to give a day for this discussion before the Recess.
    Sir W. DICKINSON: Did not His Majesty's Government, in their reply to President Wilson, state that they associated themselves whole-heartedly with the plan to create a League of Nations; and, if so, would it not be advisable for the Government to obtain the support of the House of Commons to that policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: Yes, Sir, but it is a question of giving a day before the Adjournment—that is the question on the Paper—and I do not see how it is possible to do that.
    Sir E. CARSON: Is there anybody who opposes a League of Nations?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have not met anybody who opposes it.
    Colonel Lord HENRY CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Is there anybody in this country who really knows what the Government means by a "League of Nations"?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I think that everyone in this country knows as clearly what the Government means as what anyone else means.
    Mr. A. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country that the Government have not made their position clear on this matter, and that it is of extreme national importance that they should do so?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that there is any justification for that feeling.
    Mr. WHYTE: Would the right hon. Gentleman publish as early as possible the Report of the Committee which has been sitting at the Foreign Office to discuss and inquire into this subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would like notice of that question.
    Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Does the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave just now imply that neither the Government nor anyone else really under-
    1044
    stands what a League of Nations means, and, if that is so, is it not desirable that steps should be taken to explore the subject, in order to come to some definite conclusion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not think that my answer implied anything of the kind.
    Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter, if it is shown that there is a strong feeling in the House in favour of this discussion?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only give the answer that I have always given. If the House presses me, and there is a real general desire, I always try to give a day, but I cannot myself sec that there is any need for a day before the Recess to discuss this subject.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are already two sections of this new faith, and, as it is important to prevent any further heresies, is it not desirable to have a clear statement of policy?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I have never found any discussion in this House get rid of any heresy.

    OUTSTAYING LEAVE.
    Mr. SMALLWOODasked the Prime Minister whether he will, in conjunction with the authorities concerned, take into consideration the desirability of suggesting to His Majesty the King at this time of national congratulation the exercise of his Royal prerogative in the granting of a free pardon to such members of His Majesty's Forces as outstayed their leave and who, from fear of consequences, have failed to report for duty on condition of rejoining within a specified time?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot add anything to the answer which my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for War gave to the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil on the 4th July last.

    COMMERCIAL TREATIES (MOST-FAVOURED-NATION CLAUSE).
    Captain G. LLOYDasked the Prime Minister whether any and, if so, how many commercial treaties containing Most-Favoured-Nation Treaty Clauses have recently been denounced by His Majesty's

    1045
    Government; whether there is any reason for delay in promptly carrying out the policy in regard to these treaties recently announced by His Majesty's Government; and, if so, what is the cause?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: As I said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Trinity College on the 13th May, the Government intend to take such steps as are necessary to have our hands free when peace comes, but the subject is a complicated one, and I hope the House will wait till after the Adjournment, when a general statement will be made on the whole question.
    Sir E. CARSON: Are we to take it that no steps have been taken up to the present?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: No; I think my right hon. Friend knows that we were taking steps when he was still a member of the Government.
    Captain LLOYD: Is it the Government's intention to denounce all such treaties containing the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I would really rather not add anything to the answer that I have given. The subject is a very complicated one, and I can assure the House that it is not being neglected, and that our policy will be stated as early as possible after the Recess.

    PETROLEUM BILL.
    Captain WRIGHTasked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to include in the Petroleum Bill any proposal of a highly contentious nature, notwithstanding that under the party truce the Government is precluded from introducing such a proposal except in a case of urgent national necessity and the absence of any alternative proposal?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hope that controversy such as my hon. Friend fears will not arise, but, as the terms of the Bill have not yet been settled by the Government, I can make no statement about it to-day.
    Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that if the question of paying royalties comes up it will be highly contentious?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I can only refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer. I hope that our Bill will not be considered highly contentious.
    Captain WRIGHT: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that this is a question of confiscation, and that it is a highly contentious subject?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that confiscation would be highly contentious.
    Mr. DENMAN: Is it hoped to introduce the Bill before the Recess?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I said before that I hoped so, but I do not give a definite promise.

    LABOUR, PARTY (WAR AIMS).
    Mr. DENMANasked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the replies received from enemy Socialist organisations to the Labour party's statement of war aims; and whether the Government will be prepared, at the appropriate moment, to issue passports for attendance at an international Socialist conference?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. The second part, therefore, does not arise.
    Colonel THORNE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been no reply from the Social Democrats from Germany yet?
    Mr. BONAR LAW: I hardly expected one, but I was not specially aware of it.

    OLD AGE PENSIONS.
    Mr. WHYTEasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in relation to the increase in the amount of old age pensions, he has considered the advisability of increasing the maximum amount of income from other sources below which an old age pension is payable?
    Mr. BALDWIN (Joint Financial Secretary to the Treasury): I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on the 31st January last to the hon. and gallant Member for Stirlingshire, to which I have nothing to add.

    FEDERAL DEVOLUTION.
    Mr. J. MASONasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if his attention has been, called to the Motion respecting Federal Devolution standing on the Order Book; and whether he will arrange for the House to be given an opportunity for two days' debate thereon? "That, with a view to enabling the Imperial Parliament to devote more attention to the general interests of the United Kingdom, and, in collaboration with the other Governments of the Empire, to matters of common Imperial concern, by relieving it of a large portion of its present and prospective burdens, and with a view to enabling each part of the United Kingdom to develop its social and material resources to the best advantage, consistently with the unity and security of the United Kingdom, this House is of opinion that, without prejudice to the consideration of any proposals the Government may have to make for Ireland, the time has come for the creation of subordinate legislatures within the United Kingdom, and that to this end the Government should forthwith propose to Parliament the legislative and financial powers which may be delegated to such bodies and set up the necessary conventions to consider the constitutional machinery by means of which the federal legislatures in each part of the United Kingdom should exercise those powers."]
    Mr. BONAR LAW: It would not, I think, be possible to give the time desired for this discussion before the Recess, and I shall be obliged if my hon. Friend will put the question again after the Adjournment.

    WORKHOUSES (CHILDREN).
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether over 100 children are being maintained in the Redruth Workhouse; and what steps he proposes to take with regard to this union?
    The PRESIDENT of the LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. Hayes Fisher): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In view of the restrictions on capital expenditure during the War it has been necessary in certain cases to suspend the requirements of Article 4 of the Poor Law Institutions
    1048
    Order, and so long as these restrictions are maintained, I am afraid that the children must remain in the workhouse.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCK: Are there any special conditions in the Redruth district why these children should not be boarded out?
    Mr. FISHER: I will make inquiries into that.
    Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKasked the President of the Local Government Board whether his attention has been drawn to the comments of the Board's inspector regarding the conditions under which boys are being maintained in the Helston Workhouse, the un-suitability of their food, and the necessity for preventing contact between the feeble-minded persons received under the certification order and these child inmates; and what steps he proposes to take with regard to this union?
    Mr. FISHER: The inspector drew the attention of the guardians to certain defects in the boys' present quarters. The question of moving them to fresh quarters is under consideration.

    HOUSING WORKING CLASSES.
    Sir S. ROBERTSasked the President of the Local Government Board the total number of local authorities which have intimated that houses for the working classes are required in their respective areas; the total number of such houses; and the names of the local authorities and the number of houses they respectively require in cases where such houses exceed 100 in number?
    Mr. FISHER: The total number of local authorities in England and Wales which have intimated to me that houses for the working classes are required in their areas is 1,103. Owing to the form in which the replies of local authorities have been given it is not possible to state exactly how many houses they consider necessary, but the number probably exceeds 300,000. In 510 cases the number of houses required exceeds 100. My hon. Friend will not expect me to read out the names of these 510 local authorities.
    Sir S. ROBERTS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me a list of the names?
    Mr. FISHER: I shall be pleased to do that.

    VOTERS' LISTS.
    Mr. MACMASTERasked the President of the Local Government Board if, for the purpose of giving the greatest possible publicity to the fact, he will state the latest date at which the names of electors can be placed upon the registers to be used at the next general Parliamentary and local government elections, and the latst date at which objection can be made to the lists now in course of preparation?
    Mr. FISHER: The latest day for making claims to be registered as electors is the 25th July; the last day for making objections to persons whose names are included in the published electors' lists is the 18th July.

    CHINESE LABOUR.
    Mr. WILKIEasked the Minister of Labour whether he will do his utmost to find suitable British labour for the road work upon which Chinese seamen are now engaged at Edzell; and whether, when such labour is available, he will urge upon the Department responsible the necessity for terminating the employment of the Chinese?
    The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. G. Roberts): I understand that the Road Board have arranged to transfer the Chinese seamen from the work at Edzell, as there is a prospect that British labour can now be found to take their place.

    FOOD SUPPLIES.

      POTATOES.
      Mr. WHYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether he has received representations from bodies of potato growers in Scotland in favour of the adoption of a special scheme of distribution for the potato crop of 1918 in Scotland; and, if so, whether he will take steps to put it into force?
      Mr. PARKER (Lord of the Treasury): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The representations to which the hon. Member refers are now receiving very careful consideration.

      RASPBERRIES.
      Mr. WHYTEasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food
      1050
      whether the price fixed for the 1918 raspberry crop is too low to meet the present high cost of production; whether since the price was fixed the weather has been unfavourable to raspberry growing in Scotland, and that in consequence the Scottish growers, particularly in the important counties of Perth and Forfar, are faced with a heavy loss on the present crop; and whether he can see his way to offer a better price?
      Mr. PARKER: The price of raspberries was raised on 5th July from £37 to £44 per ton plugged owing to the effects of the continued dry weather. It is not considered that the raspberry crop will be unremunerative to the growers at the present price, and it is not proposed to make any further alteration.
      Mr. WHYTE: Was that price fixed with regard to the practice of English growers, who laid stress upon the conditions prevailing in the growing of other kinds of fruits than raspberries, and is the hon. Gentleman in a position to reconsider that decision in view of the conditions in Scotland?
      Mr. PARKER: I cannot make the hon. Member any promise, but I will bring his representations to the notice of my right hon. Friend.
      Sir J. D. REES: Did not the hon. Gentleman inform me that the Government had not taken over the raspberry crop this year, and did he not mean they had no concern with it in this year?
      Mr. PARKER: I did not gather it meant that. What was said was that no one had been appointed on behalf of the Government to purchase the crop in Scotland.
      Sir J. D. REES: Is any such appointment contemplated, and, if it is, will the hon. Gentleman take care it is not Mr. Hodge, of Blairgowrie?
      Mr. PARKER: The hon. Member had better put that question down.

      CATTLE AND LAMBS.
      Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if he is aware that at Hayward's Heath market, held on 9th July, good fat lambs were selling at 45s. a piece, which is about £1 a head less than last year and considerably less than in pre-war times; and whether, in view of the fact that a farmer's outgoings, except rent, have

      1051
      risen over 100 per cent., and of the impossibility of selling lambs at these prices except at a loss, he will consider the possibility of at once allowing a higher price for lamb than the present price for mutton?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, although I cannot agree with the view taken by the hon. Member as to the relation between present and former prices. The suggestion in the last part of the question has been carefully considered, but in view of the general meat rationing scheme it has not been thought practicable to differentiate between the prices of the various qualities of meat. Such farmers as have produced fat lamb have done so with full knowledge of this decision, and in the circumstances have no legitimate ground of complaint.
      Mr. WATT: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, if farmers are not treated with more consideration in respect of their sales, there will be no meat in the market in six months' time?
      Mr. PARKER: I am not aware of that, but I am aware of the fact that a farmer considers himself fortunate if he was getting 38s. per head for his lamb prior to the War and is now getting 45s.
      Mr. CAUTLEYasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food whether at Hayward's Heath Market, held on 9th July, after the cattle and sheep had been graded by the regularly appointed committee, consisting of a farmer, a butcher, and the auctioneer, and the weights fixed, a Government official, after ascertaining the weights and grades so fixed by the committee, proceeded to alter the same and override the committee; if so, by whom this Government official is appointed, and under what authority, Statutory or otherwise, he acts; and, if he has power to override the committee, what advantage there is in retaining their services?
      Mr. PARKER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. Grading sub-commissioners were appointed last February, in order to obviate the complaints of irregular grading in many districts. They are authorised and required by the Food Controller to intervene whenever the grading in any market appears to be incorrect, and to fix the actual grades in case of disagreement.
      1052
      Their powers are supplemental to those of the grading committees, and the need for intervention is becoming increasingly rare.

      SUGAR RATIOS.
      Mr. JOWETTasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food if workmen employed by Glasgow firms who are sent over to Belfast to be employed on Government work find, on their return to Glasgow, that they are compelled to wait two or three weeks, during which time they lose their sugar ration, before the Glasgow food control officials issue a sugar ration card to them in exchange for the Belfast sugar ration card, which they had received from the police in Belfast in exchange for the Glasgow card they held when they crossed over to Ireland; and if he will make inquiries concerning the treatment of those workers who are called upon to work temporarily in Ireland by the officials at the Glasgow Food Control office, with a view to necessary amendment being effected without delay?
      Mr. PARKER: I was not aware of the difficulties to which the hon. Member refers. I may, however, state that under the national rationing scheme, which came into force on 14th July, no such difficulties can arise, inasmuch as persons leaving Great Britain for Ireland will not give up their ration books.

    OFFICER PRISONERS (PROMOTION).
    Mr. PETOasked the hon. Member for Sheffield (Central Division) whether British officers of the Territorial Force and Indian Army receive promotion while prisoners of war, but other British officers do not; and whether he will take steps to secure equal treatment in this respect?
    Mr. MACPHERSON: My right hon. Friend has asked me to answer this question. I stated the position as regards promotion of officers of the Regular Army, Special Reserve, and Territorial Force who are prisoners of war, in reply to questions by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York, on the 20th November last and the 13th March, 1917. Officers of the New Army are promoted up to the rank of lieutenant on completion of eighteen months' service when recommended All officers of the New Army who are prisoners of war are placed on the attached list, and an equitable system of

    1053
    promotion for all officers on the list is at present under consideration. Promotion of officers of the Indian Army is governed by time and is automatic.

    LAND PURCHASES, ESSEX.
    Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERY(by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Agriculture whether the attention of the Government has been called to the further purchases by a foreign syndicate of land in a highly strategic position on the east coast of Essex, in the immediate neighbourhood of the Admiralty base at Osier Island; whether the former purchases have been in any way controlled, by the Government; and whether the recent purchases effected within the last few days of about 1,200 acres in the immediate neighbourhood of the River Blackwater have been sanctioned by the Government, and whether an official inquiry is to be made before the purchase is completed; and whether steps will be taken for the protection of these strategic positions, and whether they are not of the very first importance, abutting upon the deep water channels connected with the North Sea?
    Mr. PROTHERO: I do not know of any further purchases of land by the syndicate to which I think my hon. Friend refers beyond those mentioned in my reply to his question on the 9th of April last. As I then informed him, those purchases had been brought to the notice of the War Office. I understand that they have since been brought to the notice of the Admiralty. Both these Departments are doubtless taking any steps that may be dictated from the point of view of strategic safety. I am informed by the solicitors to the County Farms and Land Company, Limited, which is the syndicate referred to, that the chairman is Mr. Christopher Turnor, and that the other directors are the hon. Member for the Wilton Division, Mr. C. L. Hansen (president of the Danish Bacon Company), Mr. George Kryn, and Captain Alfred Loewenstein, C.B. All are shareholders in the company.
    Sir F. FLANNERY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this further purchase has been arranged within the last four or five days, that it has been arranged by Mr. Loewenstein on behalf of the syndicate, and that any member of the syndicate—not the members referred to
    1054
    by him, but any member—may alienate his share of the purchase at any future date if he chooses, and will he bring this matter specially before the notice of the Government and so give the House satisfaction upon it?
    Mr. PROTHERO: It is quite evident that a question of that kind following on a question of which I have had notice only about three hours ago, is impossible to answer, but the facts stated by the hon. Member shall be brought to the attention of the Government.
    Mr. PRINGLE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman see that this syndicate goes before the Advisory Committee on Aliens?

    PRIVATE BUSINESS.
    Shropshire, Worcestershire, and Staffordshire Electric Power Bill [Lords],
    Reported, with Amendments; Report to lie upon the Table, and to be printed.

    PRIVATE BILLS (GROUP A).
    Sir WILLIAM HOWELL DAVIES reported from the Committee on Group A of Private Bills; That, for the convenience of parties, the Committee had adjourned till Tuesday next, at half-past Eleven of the clock.
    Report to lie upon the Table.

    MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.
    That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to authorise the Ipswich Dock Commission to construct additional works; to alter the tonnage duties and the rates on goods which may be levied by them; and for other purposes." [Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords.]
    Ipswich Dock Bill [Lords],
    Read the first time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

    NEW MEMBERS SWORN.
    The Right Hon. John Robert Clynes, for the Borough of Manchester (North-East Division).
    Harry Evan Auguste Cotton, Esquire, for the Borough of Finsbury (East Division).

    SMALL HOLDING COLONIES (AMENDMENT) BILL.
    Lords Amendments to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 68.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
  Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether the House will sit on Friday?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If we get all the stages of the Bill which is under discussion to-day, I do not think it will be necessary for the House to meet on Friday.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Will not the right hon. Gentleman give Friday for a discussion on the League of Nations?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: If I thought that was the wish of the House, I should be very pleased to do so.
  Mr. HOLT: I wish to ask you, Mr. Speaker, for some information in regard to the procedure of the House. If you look at the Order Paper you will sea a Notice of Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset and other hon. Members with regard to a Proclamation under the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act, 1887. That Act lays it down that if, within a period of fourteen days after the special Proclamation be laid before Parliament, an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament, praying that such special Proclamation shall not continue in force as to certain associations described therein, such Proclamation shall be deemed to have expired so far as it relates to such association or associations. Under Standing Order No. 1, proceedings made in pursuance of any Act of Parliament are not to be stopped by the operation of the Eleven o'clock Rule, but a Sessional Standing Order made at the beginning of this Session allocating the whole of the time of the House to the Government makes it impossible to move that Motion or any Motion of a similar kind. I wish to know whether that is correct?
  Mr. KING: On that point may I respectfully call your attention to the terms of the Standing Order passed by this House on the 13th February this year:
  "Ordered, That until the House otherwise determines, and so far as the House does not otherwise determine, on every day on which the
  1074
  House sits….at the conclusion of Government business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, 'That this House do now adjourn.'"
  The point I wish to ask you is this: The Standing Order contemplates this House determining whether any special exception shall be made to this Rule, not whether the Government should determine. It is the function of the House to decide, but as the matter appears to stand there is no possible occasion on which a private Member of this House can move that the House should exert the rights which it has under a Statute of the Realm. May I further ask, following upon the point raised by my hon. Friend, whether you will allow a Motion to be made under Rule 115, which raises the privileges of the House and does not necessitate a Notice of Motion—that the House, at the conclusion of Government business, proceed to consider this Order?
  Mr. SPEAKER: I do not see how I can allow that. It would be a violation of all the Rules of the House.
  Mr. KING: May I call attention, with due respect to Rule 115, which is about these Motions—there are quite a number of them—which may be made without notice? One of them is any Motion raising a question of the privilege of the House. Now it is one of our privileges, I contend, that under a Statute we may raise the question of this Proclamation—it is a privilege of the House. I ask you to rule that we may be entitled to move without notice a Motion that we proceed to the Motion on the Paper, which refers to one of these statutory privileges.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I could not possibly hold that a Motion of that kind was a Motion of privilege. I am precluded by the Sessional Order which the hon. Member for North Somerset has read. It says:
  "At the conclusion of Government business, Mr. Speaker shall propose the Question, 'That this House do now adjourn.'"
  Therefore, when I reach the end of Government business I have to put that Question, and that appears to cut out the Motion standing to-day in the name of the hon. Member for North Somerset and to cut out any Motion which any non-official Member puts down.
  Mr. HOLT: On this point, may I draw your attention to the fact that Motions of the same character are contemplated under a very large number of Bills, and

  1075
  are regarded as a convenient arrangement? It particularly applies to the Military Service (No. 2) Act of this year, which provides that
  "Every Order in Council made under this Act, other than an Order in Council made in pursuance of Section I thereof, and every Proclamation so made, shall be laid before each House of Parliament forthwith, and if an Address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament, within fourteen days after the Order or Proclamation is laid before it, praying that the Order or Proclamation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the Order or Proclamation and it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything done thereunder."
  That Clause was accepted by the Home Secretary as a concession to Members and to safeguard the control of the House over the possible extension of that Act to Ireland. The Home Secretary accepted this, and treated it very seriously, and finally he said that if the House would be prepared to take fourteen days that would give a sufficient opportunity for a Motion for an Address. I cannot think that when the Home Secretary said that he had it in his mind all the time that it was a great imposture and that there was really no opportunity of moving the Address at all, and I find it equally difficult to believe that so astute a gentleman and a lawyer has been caught in the same trap as ordinary private Members. Would it not be possible to obtain from the Home Secretary a statement as to how we should exercise the privileges which he quite willingly conferred upon us?
  Mr. SPEAKER: Is that question addressed to me, or whom is it addressed to?
  Mr. HOLT: I was respectfully asking you whether you could not ascertain from the Homo Secretary.
  Mr. SPEAKER: I should invite the hon. Member to ascertain himself.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Arising out of that question, I should like to ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of your interpretation of a Standing Order, the Government will not so modify the Standing Order as to allow the moving of an Address in such cases as that raised by my hon. Friend?
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I am sure the House will remember the circumstances under which this Sessional Order was first made. It is obvious that it does greatly
  1076
  curtail the privileges of the House, but it was done mainly on the undertaking given when the Motion was first moved by my right hon. Friend opposite, and repeated since, that whenever there was a general desire in the House to discuss any question, the Government would find time for the purpose. I have repeated the promise myself, and am always ready to carry it out. That is, I think the best possible protection for the House. As regards the particular matter raised by the hon. Member, I would point out that he can raise it on the Adjournment.
  Mr. PRINGLE: Would not the right hon. Gentleman consider that, as there is a limited period of time given to this Address, it would be very difficult to secure that general expression of opinion so as to have an Address proposed in this House in time.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I do not believe there is any substance in that. If there is any feeling in the House approaching a majority the House would certainly know.
  Mr. PRINGLE: But we have no chance of arguing the question.
  Mr. KING: In view of the offer made by the right hon. Gentleman that we may discuss it on the Adjournment to-night, will the Leader of the House refrain from moving the suspension of the Eleven o'Clock Rule, which, if carried, would prevent any discussion.
  Mr. BONAR LAW: I cannot promise to do that, but I would point out that the hon. Member can assist us in preventing that necessity arising.
  Ordered, That the Proceedings on the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill, if under discussion at Eleven o'clock this night, be not interrupted under the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Bonar Law.]

FOURTH ANNIVERSARY OF WAR.

  SERVICE AT ST. MARGARET'S, WESTMINSTER.
  The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Lloyd George): I beg to move,
  "That this House will attend at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on Sunday, the 4th August, being the fourth anniversary of the declaration of war, to invoke the Divine Blessing on our just cause."

  1077
  4.0 P.M.
  When millions of our young fellow countrymen are daily hazarding their lives, so that right and justice may prevail on earth, when the fate of our country and the destinies of the earth depend on the issue of their efforts and the efforts of their comrades from many lands, it requires no words from me to commend to the House of Commons a Motion, that on the fourth anniversary of this terrible struggle, the representatives of the nation should attend a special service, to invoke the Divine Blessing on our just cause and on the brave men who are upholding it.
  Mr. ASQUITH: The Motion which the right hon. Gentleman has made will be universally regarded as fitting and appropriate, and will surely commend itself to the House of Commons.
  Question put, and agreed to.

BRITISH NATIONALITY AND STATUS OF ALIENS BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Sir DONALD MACLEAN, Deputy-Chairman, in the Chair.]

CLAUSE 1.—(Substitution of Provisions for Section 7 of the Principal Act.)
The following Sections shall be substituted for Section seven of the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act, 1914 (hereinafter referred to as "the principal Act"), which relates to the revocation of certificates of naturalisation:—
(Revocation of Certificates of Naturalisation.)
"7.—(1) Where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained, by false representations or fraud, the Secretary of State may by order revoke the certificate, and may, if he thinks fit, before so doing refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified.
(2) Without prejudice to the foregoing provision the Secretary of State may by Order revoke a certificate of naturalisation granted by him in any case in which he is satisfied after such inquiry as is hereinafter specified that the person to whom the certificate was granted either—

(a) has shown himself by overt act or speech to be disloyal to His Majesty; or

(b) has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate been sentenced by any Court in His Majesty's Dominions to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude; or

(c) was not of good character at the date of the grant of the certificate; or

1078

(d) has since the date of the grant of the certificate been for a period of not less than seven years ordinarily resident out of His Majesty's Dominions otherwise than as a representative of a British subject, firm, or company carrying on business, or an institution established, in His Majesty's Dominions, or in the service of the Crown, and has not maintained substantial connection with His Majesty's Dominions;

and that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is not conductive to the public good.
(3) An inquiry under this Section shall be held by a committee constituted for the purpose by the Secretary of State, presided over by a person (appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Lord Chancellor) who holds or has held high judicial office, and shall be conducted in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct:
Provided that any such inquiry may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, instead of being held as aforesaid be referred to the High Court for consideration and report, and the practice and procedure of any inquiry so referred shall be regulated by rules of court.
A committee appointed under this Section shall have all such powers, rights, and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof on the occasion of any action, in respect of the following matters:

(a) the enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation, or otherwise, and the issue of a commission or a request to examine witnesses abroad; and

(b) the compelling the production of documents; and

(c) the punishing persons guilty of contempt;

and a summons signed by one or more members of the committee may be substituted for and shall be equivalent to any formal process capable of being issued in any action for enforcing the attendance of witnesses and compelling the production of documents.
(4) Where a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted in some other part of His Majesty's Dominions is resident in the United Kingdom, the certificate may be revoked in accordance with this Section by the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Government of that part of His Majesty's Dominions in which the certificate was granted.
(5) Where the Secretary of State revokes a certificate of naturalisation, the revocation shall have effect from such date as the Secretary of State may direct, and the Secretary of State may Order the certificate to be given up and cancelled, and any person refusing or neglecting to give up his certificate shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds."
(Effect of Revocation of Certificates.)
"7A.—(1) Where a certificate of naturalisation is revoked the Secretary of State may by Order direct that the wife and minor children (or any of them) of the person whose certificate is revoked shall cease to be British subjects, and any such person shall thereupon become an alien; but except where the Secretary of State directs as aforesaid, the nationality of the wife and minor children of the person whose certifi-

1079
cate is revoked shall not be affected by the revocation, and they shall remain British subjects:
Provided that it shall be lawful for the wife of any such person within six months after the date of the Order of revocation to make a declaration of alienage, and thereupon she and any minor children of her husband and herself shall cease to be British subjects and shall become aliens.
(2) The provisions of this Section shall, as respects persons affected thereby, have effect in substitution for any other provisions of this Act as to the effect upon the wife and children of any person where the person ceases to be a British subject and such other provisions shall accordingly not apply in any such case."
Sir OWEN PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (1), after the word "fraud" ["false representations or fraud"], to insert the words "or by concealment of material circumstances."
The first Clause provides that where it appears to the Secretary of State that a certificate of naturalisation granted by him has been obtained by false representations or fraud, the Secretary of State may, by order, revoke the said certificate. That meets cases of false representation or fraud, but it does not cover the case of concealment of material circumstances, and, in a case where a certificate of nationality has been granted by the suppression of certain facts which, had they been known to the Secretary of State, would have prevented the grant of the certificate, and I suggest it is only fair and reasonable that the Secretary of State should have the power to revoke such certificate, and that his power of revocation should not be confined solely to cases of fraud or misrepresentation. I regard such power quite as important as that of revocation for direct fraud, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman may see his way to accept this very reasonable Amendment. There is no doubt a very strong feeling that this Bill, as drafted, does not go far enough, and does not cover the cases of men who have got naturalised, but who ought never to have been granted the certificate of naturalisation.
The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir G. Cave): It is not easy for anyone who knows the practice of naturalisation to conceive cases where the concealment of facts does not also involve fraud, but still it might happen, and therefore I am quite prepared to accept the Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (1), after the word "by" ["has been obtained by"], to insert the words "undue influence, suppression of essential facts."
I quite realise that the question of the suppression of essential facts is well covered by the Amendment which has just been agreed to. I attach rather more importance, however, to getting a concession on this point than I do to the adoption of the words "suppression of material circumstances." After the War the obtaining or retaining of naturalisation will be a very valuable asset, as it will afford an opportunity for men who get naturalised to start new businesses in this country or to pick up the derelict ends of old businesses which may have disappeared during the War. It will be an extremely valuable thing then for an alien to become naturalised, and those who want to be naturalised or to retain their naturalisation will undoubtedly exercise considerable pressure in order to secure their ends. May I give the Committee one instance of the kind of undue influence that may be exerted? There may have been an enemy alien business which was wound up during the War by an Order of the Board of Trade. The owner may have lost his naturalisation, and may have been deported from this country. At the end of this War this particular man, who may have a friendship with some friendly neutral, may go to him and ask him to try and get back into this country and to reacquire the old business, or restart it, and hold it as a sort of warming pan for those who originally owned it. It is quite possible that this friendly alien may have an English friend in this country over whom he may have some sort of pull, either commercial or moral, which he will use in order to induce that Englishman to stand sponsor for him and induce the Home Secretary to agree to the naturalisation of the friendly neutral. The Englishman will do that, although he may well know that this friendly neutral is merely to act as the warming pan of the enemy alien who wants to get back his business. He will agree to stand as sponsor simply because he is forced to do so by reason of the pull which this friendly neutral has over him. That, I submit, is a case of undue influence which might easily occur, and I suggest that if facts of that sort are brought to the notice of the Home Secretary or any other

1081
competent authority the naturalisation thus secured ought to be revoked forthwith. I could give other examples of possible exercise of undue influence. Undoubtedly every effort will be made by these friendly neutrals to get back to this country immediately after the War, and to secure naturalisation, in order to pick up businesses which they can hold on behalf of enemy aliens.
Sir G. CAVE: I think that we had better confine ourselves to something which we can follow and know. The words suggested would be very difficult to interpret. I do not admit the possibility of undue influence on anybody who would have a hand in granting naturalisation, and, unless I admit that possibility, these words are not required.
Amendment negatived.
Sir R. COOPER: I beg to move, to leave out the word "may" ["State may by"], and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
My object is to make it quite certain that where an alien has obtained a certificate of naturalisation under false pretences or through fraud, there shall be no question of permissive powers being given to any Minister, but that in such circumstances the certificate shall be revoked. It is a mistake in a Bill like this to fill it with permissive powers which tend to cause misunderstanding as to the purpose of the Bill. Later on in the Bill the word "may" is used several times, where I recognise that it is quite proper to leave it in, but here I do maintain that it would be very much wiser to make it definite certain that, where certificates are obtained through false pretences or through fraud, those certificates shall be revoked without any question. In a subsequent Amendment, in a new Sub-section, the Home Secretary uses the word "shall"—"shall revoke the certificate." Therefore I am only asking him to accept an Amendment which is entirely consistent with an Amendment that he is about to move personally.
Sir G. CAVE: The power of revoking a certificate in the Sub-section only comes into operation when it appears to the Secretary of State that there has been fraud. It is quite plain that he will not inquire into the fraud to satisfy his mind about it unless he means to take action in the event of the result being adverse to the naturalised person. Therefore it
1082
is quite needless to say "shall." It is quite plain that if he finds fraud after inquiry he will take action. I think that the usual form is quite appropriate in this case. I have used the word "shall" in a later Amendment of my own because I want to show that the Secretary of State shall refer all existing certificates granted during the present War to a Committee, and that he shall be bound by their report. But in the present case the word "may" is quite appropriate.
Sir E. CARSON: As far as I know as a lawyer, the word "may" in this country may mean "shall," because I cannot imagine that, after the result of the inquiry which has been directed, there is any alternative to the Home Secretary. But I think what the Committee would like to know is not so much which word is used, but whether the Home Secretary, in construing the Section, will feel himself obliged to cancel or revoke the certificate if the word "may" be left there. Lawyers know that "may" very often means "shall."
Sir G. CAVE: I think that I have already in my remarks answered that inquiry-yes.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Now that the Home Secretary has made it absolutely clear that when fraud, misrepresentation, or the concealment of material facts is proved, he intends to revoke the certificate, surely it is better to put into the Act of Parliament the word "shall," in order to carry out the intention which has been expressed. Why should we have discussions that may be in the Law Courts, of which there have been too many already, as to whether "may" means "shall" in a particular context or not? The Home Secretary has clearly stated the intention to revoke. Let it be made clear in the Act of Parliament. In subsequent Sub-sections there is a reason why the Secretary of State should have a discretion, because the facts indicated are such as to give a discretion. In order to draw the distinction between such cases where he is not to have discretion, where he has got to exercise his power absolutely, as soon as the facts are proved, and the cases which come afterwards, surely it is better to put in the word which is understood by laymen rather than to leave the matter vague. My right hon. Friend is Home Secretary, and we have every confidence in him.

1083
There have been Home Secretaries—I need not refer to them by name—in whom we have not had such confidence, and there may be Home Secretaries again in whom we may not have the same confidence. I trust that my right hon. Friend will long retain his present post and will administer this Act, but, in order to guard against the possibility of some less competent Home Secretary in future misunderstanding this Act of Parliament, I beg of my right hon. Friend to bring its language into consonance with the ideas and intentions of the Committee and with his own avowed intention.
Sir F. BANBURY: My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Trinity College has informed us that lawyers know that "may" means "shall."
Sir E. CARSON: That "may" may mean "shall."
Sir F. BANBURY: That is all the more reason for the argument that I am going to put before the Committee. When this Bill becomes an Act it will refer to foreigners, and foreigners do not thoroughly understand the English language, and certainly not the interpretation which is put upon it by lawyers. As my right hon. and learned Friend says that "may" may mean "shall," surely it must be in the interest of laymen, and in the interest of all those whom this Act concerns, not to put in a word which may be interpreted by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen learned in the law in different ways, but to put in a word which everybody shall understand, and which carries out the intention of my right hon. Friend, who says that of course so long as he is Home Secretary, once that he has directed an inquiry and finds that there is fraud, he will take this action. In those circumstances why not put in this word, and say that when certain facts are established, certain consequences shall follow? It is the common sense way of doing it.
Mr. G. LLOYD: I think that, after what the Home Secretary has said, it would give needless ground for anxiety to the public if an Amendment like this were refused. If it really is clear that even if the word "may" is retained action will be taken in the case suggested, then it is rather hard to see why the word "shall" should not be inserted, instead of the word "may." I support the Amendment.
Commander BELLAIRS: I rise to support the proposal to substitute "shall" for "may," and for two reasons. First, we have heard from Members learned in the law, continually in this House, in the course of discussion on other Bills, that the word "may" means "shall." Here is an opportunity for the Committee when it means "shall" to insert that word. Another reason is that this House is suspect in regard to aliens, and there is nothing which would create a worse impression than to put the word "may" into a Bill when the public demand the word "shall."
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I hope that the Home Secretary will not give way. I have seen a great many Bills of this character, and I have never seen anything but the word "may," and to put in the word "shall" would be to make a complete change in the custom of this House. I do not know why our ancestors for generations back always put in the word "may" when they meant "shall." My impression is that our ancestors had a great deal of experience of some of those hysterical agitations, such as we are being subjected to at the present time, and I think that it would be extremely foolish of this Committee to give way to such an agitation, and I feel confident that the Committee has sufficient good sense not to give way to it, but will adhere to the good old custom of our ancestors which has not brought in the word "shall" when the word "may" really does everything that is required. The only reason, as I understand the speeches, for altering the word "may" into "shall" is that the Members who have spoken have not confidence in His Majesty's Home Secretary, either this one or someone in the future. This House has perfect confidence in the Home Secretary appointed by His Majesty, and always will have. He is under its control, and I hope that in consequence of the somewhat hysterical agitation we shall not alter the good old customs that have existed for so many years, the alteration of which would be a revolution something like Bolshevism, and that this revolutionary and altogether hopeless proposal will not be accepted by the Home Secretary.
General Sir IVOR PHILIPPS: I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment. We do not want the good old customs about aliens. We have had enough of them. I bring no charge

1085
against my right hon. Friend. I know perfectly well that he will carry it out to the best of his ability, but I think that we ought to put in what we mean. We mean that, if the Secretary of State comes to a certain conclusion, he shall take certain action, I think that the Committee ought to express in this Bill what it means, and to say that it shall be done. I hope that if we go to a Division we shall beat the Government on it. I think that the whole country is determined that we shall do these things.
Mr. DAVID MASON: According to the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, we ought not to put in the word "shall" instead of "may," and we have it on the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University that "may" means "shall." I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken, that we ought to put in the word "shall" as expressing what we mean.
Sir G. CAVE: I have submitted my view to the Committee, and while I wish this to be a strongs Bill, I do not think that it ought to be amended by the introduction of a phrase which is rather absurd for an Act of Parliament. If hon. Members will look at the Bill for a moment, I think they will not spend so much time on a point like this. Its object is that the Secretary of State shall have power to revoke a certificate of naturalisation where it is proved that it has been obtained by fraud. The words of the Bill are the exact words used in the existing Statute of 1914, where the word "may" appears. The right hon. Member for Dublin University knows that I am right in objecting to this Amendment. I have put the Clause in the form in which it appears in the Act of 1914. I hope that the Committee will not divide. It is not giving the Bill a fair chance to spend time on points like this. I am prepared to meet Members when I believe that they are right, but I cannot meet them when I believe they are wrong. I want the Committee, as a whole, to support me in my action, which, I am sure, is perfectly reasonable. I am called all sorts of names outside, and my action is referred to as most scandalous and so forth, but I think that I should have support in this House when I am right, and I trust that time will not be occupied
1086
on a matter which might lead to a misunderstanding or wrong impression outside.
Mr. WATT: I submit that hon. Members should press this Amendment to substitute the word "shall" for "may." It is clear from the observations of Members in the House that they are practically unanimous that the Amendment should be adopted, and if the matter goes to a Division I trust that Members will vote for the insertion of the word "shall" in place of "may." Where fraud is discovered in the obtaining of a certificate of naturalisation, the Home Secretary should be bound by the introduction of the word "shall" to revoke the certificate. We have been told in this House by the highest authority on legal matters, the right hon. Member for Trinity College, that "may" may mean "shall," and sometimes does mean "shall"; but what we want is that in this Act of Parliament the word shall be "shall," and shall mean "shall." This is a matter of some importance, and, as the rule has been suspended, there is no necessity for hastening foolishly the decision of this Amendment.
Colonel GREIG: I associate myself with what the Home Secretary has said, and from the point of view of the law there is no reason for substituting "shall" for "may." I am quite sure that the Home Secretary's construction of this Clause is quite right. Hon. Members who are taking the other view insist on the insertion of the word "shall," and I think what they have in their mind is that some future Home Secretary who was suspect, or in whom there was not confidence, might not revoke the certificate. But even if the word "shall" were inserted you might have a future Home Secretary who would hear all the evidence as to whether or not fraud had been committed in obtaining a certificate, and he might say, after making his investigation, "I have not had it made clear to me that the certificate has been obtained by fraud." So much for the proposed alteration, which would effect nothing more to secure the object in view than does the Bill as it now stands. I support the Secretary of State in resisting the Amendment.
Sir R. COOPER: I do not think that the Home Secretary is acting quite fairly when he describes this Amendment as a demonstration and a waste of time.
Sir G. CAVE: No.
Sir R. COOPER: I have no other object than to try to do my best, and I am very glad I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I cannot understand, however, why he refuses my Amendment, seeing that in a later Amendment in the right hon. Gentleman's name he uses the words "shall revoke." I do not know

Division No. 67.]

AYES.

[4.38 p.m.

Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte

Harris, Percy A. (Leicester, South)

Parkes, Sir Edward

Anderson, William C.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Parrott, Sir Edward

Baker, Rt. Hon. H. T. (Accrington)

Hewart, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon

Partington, Hon. Oswald

Baldwin, Stanley

Higham, John Sharp

Pearce, Sir William (Limehouse)

Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset)

Hinds, John

Peel, Major Hon. G. (Spalding)

Barnston, Major Harry

Hodge, Rt. Hon. John

Pratt, John W.

Barton, Sir William

Holmes, D. T.

Price, Sir Robert J. (Norfolk, E.)

Bathurst, Col. Hon. A. B. (Glouc., E.)

Holt, Richard Durning

Priestley, Sir W. E. B. (Br'df'rd, E.)

Beach, William F. H.

Hope, John Deans (Haddington)

Pringle, William M. R.

Beale, Sir William Phipson

Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

Pryce-Jones, Col. Sir E.

Beckett, Hon. Gervase

Hudson, Walter

Pulley, C. T.

Benn, Sir Arthur S. (Plymouth)

Hughes, Spencer Leigh

Rea, Walter Russell

Bird, Alfred

Hunter, Maj. Sir Chas. Rodk.

Rendall, Athelstan

Blake, Sir Francis Douglas

Illingworth, Rt. Hon. Albert H.

Richardson, Alexander (Gravesend)

Boyton, Sir James

Ingleby, Holcombe

Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven)

Brace, Rt. Hon. William

Jackson, Lt.-Col. Hon. F. S. (York)

Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

Brunner, John F. L.

Jardine, Ernest, (Somerset, East)

Roberts, Sir Herbert (Denbighs)

Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James

Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)

Roberts, Sir S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

Burn, Col C. R. (Torquay)

Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, E.)

Robinson, Sidney

Burns, Rt. Hon. John

Jones, Wm. S. Glyn-(Stepney)

Rutherford, Col. Sir J. (Darwen)

Carew, Charles R. S. (Tiverton)

Jewett, Frederick William

Samuels, Arthur W. (Dub, U.)

Carr-Gomm, H. W.

Kenyon, Barnet

Sanders, Col. Robert Arthur

Cator, John

Kerry, Lieut.-Col. Earl of

Seely, Lt.-Col. Sir Charles (Mansfield)

Cave, Rt. Hon. Sir George

Kiley, James Daniel

Shaw, Hon. Alexander

Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Aston Manor)

Knight, Cant. Eric Ayshford

Sherwell, Arthur James

Clough, William

Lambert, Richard (Cricklade)

Somervell, William Henry

Collins, Sir Stephen (Lambeth)

Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootle)

Spear, Sir John Ward

Collins, Sir William (Derby)

Lewis, Rt. Hon. John Herbert

Stanton, Charles Butt

Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J.

Lloyd, George Butler (Shrewsbury)

Stirling, Lt.-Col. Archibald

Cory, James H. (Cardiff)

Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury)

Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, W.)

Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry

Lowe, Sir F. W.

Thomas, Sir G. (Monmouth, S.)

Crooks, Rt. Hon. William

M'Callum, Sir John M.

Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton)

Currie, G. W.

Maclean, Rt. Hon. Sir Donald

Tickler, Thomas George

Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

Macmaster, Donald

Tootill, Robert

Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas

McMicking, Major Gilbert

Toulmin, Sir George

Dickinson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. H.

Maden, Sir John Henry

Turton, Edmund Russborough

Dougherty, Rt. Hon. Sir James B.

Mallalieu, F. W

Walker, Col. W. H.

Edge, Capt. William

Marriott, John A. R.

Weigall, Lt.-Col. W. E. G. A.

Elverston, Sir Harold

Marshall, Arthur Harold

White, James Dundas (Tradeston)

Falle, Sir Bertram Godfray

Mason, James F. (Windsor)

Whiteley, Sir H. J. (Droitwich)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. H. A. L. (Hallam)

Mason, Robert (Wansbeck)

Whyte, Alexander F. (Perth)

Fisher, Rt. Hon. W. Hayes (Fulham)

Millar, James Duncan

Williams, Aneurin (Durham)

Flannery, Sir J. Fortescue

Molteno, Percy Alport

Williams, Col. Sir R. (Dorset, W.)

Geddes, Sir A. C. (Hants, North)

Morgan, George Hay

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.)

Gibbs, Col. George Abraham

Morison, Hector (Hackney, South)

Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

Gilmour, Lt.-Col. John

Morrell, Philip

Wilson-Fox, Henry (Tamworth)

Glanville, Harold James

Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert

Wright, Henry Fitzherbert

Greig, Colonel James William

Newman, Sir Robert (Exeter)

Younger, Sir George

Gretton, John

Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield)

Yoxall, Sir James Henry

Hambro, Angus Valdemar

Orde-Powlett, Hon. W. G. A.

Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose)

Palmer, Godfrey Mark

TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— Captain Guest and Mr. James Hope.

Harris, Sir Henry P. (Paddington, S.)

Parker, James (Halifax)

NOES.

Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick

Greer, Harry

Rowlands, James

Barran, Sir Rowland Hurst (Leeds, N.)

Harmood-Banner, Sir J. S.

Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry (N'wood)

Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.

Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry

Smallwood, Edward

Booth, Frederick Handel

King, Joseph

Walton, Sir Joseph

Bowden, Major Georgs R. H.

Martin, Joseph

Watt, Henry A.

Cotton, H. E. A.

Mason, David M. (Coventry)

Wedgwood, Lt.-Commander Josiah C.

Cowan, Sir William Henry

Newman, Major J. R. P. (Enfield)

Yate, Col. Charles Edward

Fell, Sir Arthur

Pennefather, De Fonblanque

Gilbert, James Daniel

Perkins, Walter Frank

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— Sir R. Cooper and Mr. Kennedy Jones

Goulding, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

Philipps, Maj.-Gen. Sir Ivor (S'hampton)

why he applies his argument to my Amendment and does not apply it to the Sub-section which he himself will propose in a few minutes.
Question put, "That the word 'may' stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 27.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (1), to leave out the words
"and may, if he thinks fit, before so doing refer the ease for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified."
I have several Amendments down, and I should like your opinion with regard to them, Sir. The first, which is to leave out the word "the" and insert the word "such," is obviously a drafting Amendment, and is only necessary because I propose to leave out certain words in the same line, "and may, if he thinks fit, before so doing refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified," and transfer them to the end of Subsection (2). I further propose, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "after such inquiry as is hereinafter specified." I do not know whether I should address my arguments now to all these matters, or confine myself to the first of them?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not know that I quite follow the hon. and gallant Member. I think we had better take the matter in instalments, and have the Amendments as they stand on the Paper.
Major NEWMAN: As far as I can make out, this is rather an involved Clause, and the Home Secretary is going to apply two different treatments in two different cases. Where a certificate of naturalisation has been obtained by fraud the Home Secretary may, if he thinks fit, refer the case for an inquiry.
Sir E. CARSON: Which Amendment are we on?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I assume that we are on the Amendment in the first Sub-section—to leave out the word "the" and to insert "such."
Sir E. CARSON: I cannot make out from the hon. and gallant Member why he suggests that.
Major NEWMAN: It is really a drafting-Amendment. If the words, "and may if he thinks fit before so doing," etc., were taken from the first Sub-section and inserted at the end of the second Subsection, then, instead of having "the certificate," we should have "such certificate."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I understand the hon. Member is not moving his drafting Amendment, but the second
1090
Amendment on the Paper, namely, to leave out the words, "and may if he thinks fit before so doing refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified."
Major NEWMAN: I do not understand what you have put. I withdrew my drafting Amendment, and proceeded to argue my next Amendment, but I had not finished my argument on that point.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I thought the hon. and gallant Member had addressed his remarks to that Amendment, and I think it would be for the convenience both of the Committee and the hon. and gallant Member to hear what the Home Secretary has to say upon it.
Sir G. CAVE: Which Amendment, Sir?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The second one.
Sir G. CAVE: The second, of course, has substance in it. What it proposes is that the Secretary of State shall have power to revoke a certificate obtained by fraud, but shall not have power before he revokes the certificate to order an inquiry. It seems to me absurd. As a matter of fact, there is now power to revoke a certificate obtained by fraud, but the great difficulty of applying that power is that there is no machinery for inquiry previously. I have revoked one certificate for fraud, but in that case I found a difficulty because there is no machinery for ascertaining whether it was obtained by fraud or not. These words to which the hon. Member objects give me the power to order an inquiry.
Sir E. CARSON: May I ask whether the word "may" means "shall" in this case? If it means "shall," I should have thought it was imposing an unnecessary burden upon this Committee.
Sir G. CAVE: The right hon. Gentleman will observe that it says "may if he thinks fit."
Major NEWMAN: As a matter of fact, the Home Secretary entirely misunderstands me. I am not objecting to these words at all. On the contrary, they are necessary, only I want them put in in another place in the Bill, namely, at the end of the second Sub-section. If this Amendment could not be moved, my next Amendment on the Paper would be made

1091
impossible, and it is for that reason that I move that these words should be transposed.
Amendment negatived.
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7, after Sub-section (1), to insert,
"(2) Where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted during the present War to a person who at, or at any time before, the grant of the certificate was the subject of a country which at the date of the grant was at War with His Majesty, the Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified the question whether it is desirable in the public interest that the certificate should be revoked, and if such question shall be answered in the affirmative shall revoke the certificate, but this provision shall not, unless the Secretary of State otherwise orders, apply to a person who at birth was a British subject."
The Sub-section carries out the proposals which I outlined in the House the other day. It refers to certificates of naturalisation granted to enemy aliens during the War. There may be cases where a man has lost his enemy nationality and at the date of the grant of the certificate of naturalisation had no nationality at all. I want to include all those cases—not only the man who at the moment was an enemy but who before that time had been an enemy. He may have been naturalised in another country and come over here and got his certificate, and I want to include that case as well as the man who at the moment of naturalisation was a subject of an enemy State. I have put "shall" in this ease because I promised the House the other day that in every case reference should be made, and I do not want to preserve even the semblance of a discretion in these cases. I am willing to be bound to refer all these cases for inquiry and to be bound to act on the results of such inquiry. There is a substantial difference between my form and that of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), appearing next on the Paper. I refer the question "whether it is desirable in the public interest that the certificate should be revoked," but he says that a certificate shall be revoked unless the Committee reports that "for national reasons it is desirable that the certificate should not be revoked." There is a difference of language, and there may be some difference of substance, but I think my form is right. Certificates have been granted by my predecessors for what appeared to them to be
1092
good reasons, and I think the grant ought to have some weight, and I ask the Committee to say whether it shall or shall not be revoked. I am sure they will take a strict view of their functions and that in every case where they think a certificate should be revoked they will report accordingly.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I ought to state that if this Amendment is carried I shall not be able to accept the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and learned Member for York, so that any points he wishes to raise he had better do so by way of Amendment to the Home Secretary's proposal.
[The Amendment standing in the name of Sir J. Butcher was as follows:
"(2) Where a certificate of naturalisation has been granted after January, nineteen hundred and fourteen, to a subject of a country which is now our enemy, the Secretary of State shall by Order revoke the certificate unless the committee hereinafter referred to or the High Court, after such inquiry as is hereinafter specified, shall report that for national reasons it is desirable that the certificate should not be revoked."]
Sir E. CARSON: I am bound to say that for my own part I think the Amendment moved by the Home Secretary is very disappointing. I think the country expects a good deal more than what is suggested by this Amendment, and I would like to have seen an Amendment which prevented certificates of naturalisation being granted to alien enemies, that is, those who belong to enemy countries at war with this country. This Amendment presupposes that some certificates were granted to enemies while this country was at war with those enemies, and I think that is highly improper.
Sir G. CAVE: I have never granted such a certificate, and I am quite sure that no such certificate will be granted.
5.0 P.M.
Sir E. CARSON: I have the greatest possible confidence in the Home Secretary, but it is quite plain that there were Home Secretaries who granted certificates to subjects whose countries were actually at war with this country, and that is the kind of thing that has aroused the country. I should like to see all such certificates granted since the War absolutely cancelled. Instead of doing that, the Home Secretary refers the matter to a judicial body, with a judge or ex-judge at the head, to decide whether it is desirable in the

1093
public interest that the certificates should be revoked. He does not take any responsibility upon himself, but merely puts it upon them. I thought the House was going to lay down that it was in the public interest that no one who had been an enemy subject when this war broke out should be allowed to have a certificate. Apparently you are going to say to this Committee, "True, this man was a subject of Germany when the War broke out, but he was given a certificate, and you, the Committee, have a right to say that he is to go on having that certificate, and you, the Committee, have a right to say that he is to go on having that certificate." I think that is disappointing, I think it is about as weak as the Clause could be, and while I do not think that the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) goes far enough, I much prefer it, because, at all events, it makes it absolutely necessary that the certificate should be revoked unless there are some grounds shown for not doing so. I merely make this criticism in the hope that the Home Secretary, before the Report stage, will see his way to strengthen this somewhat, because I can assure him there will be great disappointment when it is known that subjects of an enemy country before the War, who have been naturalised since, are to be allowed to retain their naturalisation.
Mr. D. MASON: On a point of Order. I understand your ruling, Sir Donald, is that the proposed Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York which follows cannot be moved if this Amendment is carried. May I ask if that also applies to my Amendment a little later on, in which I propose that the holder of a naturalisation certificate shall have the right of appeal against the decision of any such inquiry to the High Court?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: So far as I recall the hon. Member's Amendment, it follows on another portion of the Clause which is more or less relevant. I cannot say at the moment whether it affects that or not, but if it does affect it—well, we cannot help it.
Mr. MASON: If it does affect it, it is very important for me to know, so that if necessary I can move a proviso to this Amendment of the Home Secretary. I am very anxious to argue the right of appeal.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I had better have a look at it for a moment.
Mr. WHYTE: If I understand the argument of the right hon. and learned Gentle-man the Member for Trinity College, he wants to ensure that the Home Secretary shall act in a summary fashion in every case where these certificates have been granted. It is perfectly obvious the Home Secretary cannot act in a summary fashion, but must have a regularly constituted committee of inquiry to assist him to decide as to what persons, technically enemy subjects, are yet entitled to hold British naturalisation certificates. We know perfectly well that nearly one-half the subjects, for instance, of Austro-Hungarian nationality in this country, in the strict letter of the law, are to be regarded as enemy subjects, but who, in respect of their feelings and opinions, are in no sense subjects of enemy countries. It is perfectly obvious that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Trinity College and his friends had their way, the Government would have to reverse what I believe to be its just and necessary policy in relation to many of the subject peoples, both of the German Empire and of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, if they were to try to satisfy their critics on this subject. I am quite sure, from the attitude the Home Secretary has taken in all his recent declarations on this subject, that he will do nothing of the kind. I am very glad to recognise that the Home Secretary represents in his attitude the attitude of the great bulk of the nation, who, I believe, thoroughly disapprove of the manner in which this agitation has been carried on, and who, while they recognise that no doubt drastic measures have to be taken in time of war against enemy subjects, nevertheless, as I say, entirely and rightly disapprove of the manner in which pure prejudice has been exploited against persons who ought not to be the objects of attack. I only rise on this occasion to make quite certain that the Government will renew its explicit declarations of the past, and that in any Amendment it introduces into this Bill to satisfy its critics, it will not in any way endanger those subjects of enemy Powers who, while being technically enemy aliens, are in fact allies of the Allied cause.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I agree with the hon. Member who has just spoken that there must be a judicial inquiry before

1095
the Home Secretary acts in this matter of cancelling certificates. I have always appreciated the force of the argument that there are some people who are only technically enemy aliens, and that when they have got their naturalisation there is no ground for taking it away. So far. I agree with him, but I entirely disagree with the statements about hysterical agitation. There is such a thing as overdoing popular agitation, I entirely agree, but there is also such a thing as putting your head in a sack and ignoring it, and I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, and another hon. Member who has addressed the Committee, are rather apt in this matter not only to underrate the intensity of public opinion, but also the strength of the case. The Home Secretary has very properly said that he has never naturalised a German alien during this War, and that he never will. I rather think the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. H. Samuel) acted in the same way. Why do we find ninety German aliens naturalised in the first five months of the War and 146 naturalised, I think it was, in the first year or so after the War began? Were all those proper? Is there any reason in the public interest why all those certificates should be preserved? I should say that, having regard to the fact that the right hon. Gentleman says he is not going to naturalise any more, it is primâ facie a reason why none of those gentlemen should be naturalised unless a judicial body; which the right hon. Gentleman very properly sets up, finds that their certificates were properly granted.
Therefore, I very much prefer my own Amendment to that of the right hon. Gentleman, which I do not think goes far enough. I prefer it for two reasons. In the first place, my Amendment proposes an inquiry into all cases of such naturalisation since 1st January, 1914, instead of fixing the date at the beginning of the War. On the 1st January, 1914, a new German law came into existence, under which persons were permitted by the German Government to retain their German nationality, notwithstanding that they had got naturalised in another country. That, to my mind, constitutes a strong primâ facie, reason for revoking their British certificates of naturalisation. How can a man serve two masters? How can he owe allegiance to the Kaiser and to the King of England?
1096
Yet these persons who were naturalised since 1st January, 1914, are supposed to be loyal subjects and to give loyal allegiance to the King of England, when, by the German law, they are loyal subjects, and owe allegiance to the Kaiser. The thing is impossible. Therefore, I would beg the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider that question as to the date, and to fix the date, instead of at the beginning of the War, as from the 1st January, 1914.
There is another point, and perhaps even a more important one, in which my Amendment differs from that of my right hon. Friend. He says that the judicial inquiry shall be whether it is desirable in the public interest that the certificate shall be revoked. I put it the other way. I say, is it desirable, in the public interest, that the certificate should be retained? I think that is the proper way to put it. If this judicial committee says it is desirable that the certificate should be retained, well and good; it will be retained. But I think the judicial body should not have to decide positively and definitely that it is desirable in the public interest that the certificate should be revoked before any action should be taken. In the course of the Debate on Thursday last, when my right hon. Friend was explaining the intention of the Government, he said:
"The effect will be that all certificates of naturalisation granted to enemy aliens during the War will be reviewed by the Committee, and if they so advise, they will be revoked. Sir J. Butcher: Would the right hon. Gentleman say that certificates of naturalisation granted since the War will be cancelled unless there are national reasons for retaining them? Sir G. Cave: I think it comes very much to that. I propose that those certificates shall be submitted to the judicial committee for review, and, if there are any grounds for revoking them, they will be revoked. I should not think that they are likely to advise their retention unless there are good reasons for doing so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th July, 1918, col. 530.
That is exactly what I want—that these certificates should not be retained unless the Committee say there are good reasons for retaining them. I think that is sound. I do not want to tie the right hon. Gentleman down to any words he uttered in the course of Debate, because I know whatever he said he will carry out. But may I carry it one step further, and say that my proposal is a reasonable one? We know now what these Germans are both in peace and War. We have had

1097
a good many instances as to the mode in which, and the purpose for which, they obtained certificates of naturalisation during the War. There was the case of Lazlo, the painter, which has been referred to very often in this House. He used powerful influences, and his certificate of naturalisation, for which he applied four days before the War, was granted after the War. Why? He never suggested for one moment, and he could not suggest, that he wanted to be, and intended to be, a loyal subject of the King. He gave some paltry reasons. He wanted to continue his painting business, or something of that sort, but, in the result, that man is interned under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Act, although a naturalised subject. That is the type of man who got his certificate of naturalisation, and, therefore, I say we should be carrying out what would be a reasonable policy if we said that these certificates which were granted, very often for some totally inadequate purpose, should be revoked unless the Home Secretary says that the judicial body finds good reason for retaining them. It would be very difficult to put it to the judicial committee which is being set up: "Do you find good reasons for revoking it after reasonable inquiries," and I suggest it should be: "Do you suggest good reason for maintaining it?" I therefore propose, in the Amendment of my hon. Friend, to strike out the word "revoke," and to insert the word "retain," and the consequential effect would be at the latter part of the Amendment to strike out the word "affirmative" and put in the word "negative," so that it would read:
"The Secretary of State shall refer for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified, the question whether it is desirable in the public interest that the certificate shall be retained, and if such question should be answered in the negative shall revoke the certificate."
Mr. HEMMERDE: I join with the hon. Member for Perth in urging the Government to stand firm to these words. It seems to me that the hon. and learned Member (Sir J. Butcher) very much underrates the importance of the word of this country when it is given. It seems to him to make no difference that three or four years ago we naturalised a person and solemnly gave him the right of citizenship. I think it makes a great difference, and that before we take away that right a judicial body ought to find that there are reasons for doing so, not
1098
that we automatically take it away unless it is in the national interests it should be retained. As I pointed out the other day, great hardship would be done by such a, proposal as is now suggested by the hon. and learned Member for York to some people whose existence could hardly, in the ordinary sense, be considered of national importance—people of quite humble position. There are one or two such persons in that list against whom nothing could be said. I discussed the matter with a former Home Secretary, and he told me that the principle he went upon was this, "If you bring me someone who has been in the country a number of years, far over five years, and suddenly he evinces a desire for naturalisation after the War began, I will not listen to it, but if you bring me somebody who can assure me that he has always desired to apply for citizenship immediately the five years expired: and I am convinced that it is the case, then I do not see why the outbreak of war should interfere with that person's position—provided I am convinced there are good grounds for supposing what he says to be true."
I know of cases in that list, one or two cases at least, of quite humble people who were naturalised after the War broke out, and who would not come within my hon. and learned Friend's definition. They are of those races many of whom are friendly to us, and there are people even of the South German races whom we know are extremely friendly to us, and many of whom, when they had the opportunity, have even fought the Prussians, and their children have come over here to live among us. I know the case of one family all of whom left Germany at the wish of their parents. One of them who came over here was a girl slightly over twenty years of age, who had been naturalised after the War broke out. We were able to show that there were absolutely no grounds of suspicion against her, and I was able to tell the Home Secretary at the time that for years I had known it to be her one desire to become naturalised as soon as the five years expired, which was just before the War. She came up in the ordinary course, speaking English as well as anyone in this House, and her one desire was to be naturalised. On what conceivable grounds of, I will not say justice, but the dignity of this country, are you going to say to someone like her who is little more than a child, "Unless you can show good

1099
national reasons for retaining naturalisation we are going to take it away." I do not think that even the hon. and learned Member for York would desire to take away naturalisation in such a case. But I go further and say that in such a case the national honour is involved, and I think it is indecent for this country to be in such a state either of pitiable terror or of an ignominious feeling of revenge that we should turn on the harmless subjects of a race we are fighting and say we shall make it unpleasant for them.
I do not yield even to the right hon. Member for Trinity College, Dublin, in my detestation of Germany and the methods the Germans have used in this War, but because I have some respect for the honour of this country, I say that when this country has given its word, it is not right to break it in the case of persons, however humble, unless that arrangement has been gone back upon by those people. There are some of these people who have used all the ability and talent they possess for the benefit of this country in the War, and are you going to say to them that, although we naturalised them four years ago, and although they have gone on in the pride of British citizenship, their naturalisation is to be taken away because they do not happen to be persons of national importance? It is a national outrage that this attack which has been made in regard to the aliens question should be so misused as to deal with a case like I have mentioned in a way which is out of harmony with the whole of our British traditions. Like the hon. Member for Perth, I also recognise that the Home Secretary has done well in keeping this matter upon judicial lines. We have heard again and again throughout this Debate that this Committee, presided over by Mr. Justice Sankey and Mr. Justice Younger, two of the ablest judges of the land, have the complete confidence of this House and the country, and I for one cannot see any reason why we should not leave it to those judges and the other Committees who support them to decide whether it is in the public interest that the certificates should be revoked, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman, not only now, but in the future stages of this Bill, will set his face rigorously against any such interference with the rights of people, even though there are very few of them against whom nothing can be said. I
1100
agree with what the hon. Member for Hornsey said the other day when he expressed a hope that when the War is over we shall feel we have done no injustice and feel no sense of wrong in regard to our treatment of any man or woman in this country.
Sir RICHARD COOPER: I support this Amendment, but I would like to say, in answer to what the hon. and learned Gentleman has just said, that there is no aspect of this matter which, in my opinion, gives a stronger case for those of us who are condemned for asking that in time of war there should be very strict regulations in dealing with people-about whom we are not perfectly certain. I do think that the Committee must bear in mind that while it is the fact that we feel more than ordinary confidence in the present Home Secretary, there have been over 200 imprisonments of enemy aliens in this country while he has been Home Secretary. Those are only convictions, and there are numbers who were not convicted while there are also people who have not been found out. I know that it would be out of order on this Amendment to develop this point, but I say that it is a justification for those who feel that we have no right to gamble with the fate of the nation, and that we are right in pressing for what we regard as full and necessary measures of protection. This Amendment of the Home-Secretary, which I support, will remove the necessity of proposing an Amendment later on, and of which I have given notice, to insert in Sub-section (2) "who holds allegiance to a foreign State." Not being legally trained, I am not perfectly certain how far the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman meets that case, but as the hon. and learned Member for York pointed out, this point goes a little further than the Home Secretary's Amendment actually does, and it was specially advocated, as my right hon. Friend will remember, in the Report which was sent to-the Prime Minister.
There are a number of certificates of naturalisation which have been granted since the 1st of January, 1914, to people who now, according to our laws, are British citizens, but who absolutely hold allegiance by agreement with the German Government to the German Emperor under the Delbrück law after the War is over, and they can just go back to Germany and be full-blown German citizens as if

1101
they had never been in this country. I know that to deal with this is to go a little bit further than the Home Secretary's Amendment, but after what he has said about the administration of this Bill I feel confident that he will take care and require his officials, upon whom after all the administration of the Act in its regular daily course depends, to interpreting the working of the Act, if this Bill becomes an Act, in the spirit he has suggested, so that it will cover the cases we have put forward. I should have preferred, as the hon. and learned Member has suggested, to have seen the onus of proof placed upon the supposed enemy alien rather than upon the Government, and that the word "revoked" should be changed to the word "retained." That would change the onus of proof and it would be an advantage, but this Amendment does go a long way to meet the point suggested by myself and those associated with me in considering this matter. It really is of great importance, and after the assurances which the right hon. Gentleman has given I feel sure that this will be adequately and properly administered.
Sir G. CAVE: I venture to hope that this particular Amendment will not be pressed. I would like to say a word about the Delbrück law, because I feel it is misunderstood. The hon. and learned Member for York seems to think that it was under the Delbrück law that a German naturalised here retained hit nationality. That is a mistake—he always retained his nationality and that law did not make the rule. On the contrary, it brought in an exception to that rule, for the Delbrück law said, for the first time, that if a person was naturalised in a foreign country without the consent of the German Government he lost his nationality. That was the change, and it really reduced the cases in which German nationality was so retained.
Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask my right hon. and learned Friend a question on this point? My recollection, so far as it goes, is that in German law, in certain cases, a man loses his nationality if he goes out of Germany and stays away for a certain time.
Sir G. CAVE: My point was that naturalisation abroad did not in any case take away German nationality.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I feel very strongly that if the matter stands as it is in the
1102
Amendment of my right hon. and learned Friend, that we shall get very few of these Germans who may have been naturalised since the War deprived of their certificates.
Sir J. WALTON: May I ask the Home Secretary whether it is the intention with those who have been naturalised since 1914, when the question is considered as to whether or not their naturalisation should be revoked, that at any rate one condition of the retention of their certificate shall be that they absolutely renounce their German or alien enemy nationality—renounce it as part of what they have to do if they wish to retain British nationality?
Sir R. COOPER: Change their allegiance?
Sir J. WALTON: Yes, whatever it is.
Sir W. BEALE: Is not the point that the question to be decided is whether it is desirable in the public interest that the certificate should be revoked if there is still in any case such a retention of allegiance or obligation to the German Government, and so on—that would be the question? The whole matter, it seems to me, is a question which will be covered by the inquiry proposed by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not think the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend can be accepted. He suggests that in every case the question should be whether it is desirable in the public interest that the certificates should or should not be retained, but consider the case of some poor Armenian or some Pole, people of that kind who have been naturalised since the War! Is it, or is it not, in the public interest to retain them here? I am not, however, unwilling to leave out the words "in the public interest." If that meets the point of my hon. and learned Friend, I shall be quite willing to make that alteration; otherwise I must resist his Amendment.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I am not convinced that my Amendment is wrong, but as I do not think the Home Secretary is likely to be convinced that it is right, I ask leave to withdraw it if he will be good enough to strike out the words "in the public interest." This Clause will be very much better for the alteration.
Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, as an. Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "in the public interest."
Mr. HEMMERDE: I think I agree with the Home Secretary that there is no objection to leaving out these words. It seems to me, however, that they leave the Clause just the same.
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "unless the Secretary of State otherwise orders."
Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he means by this last sentence, "apply to a person who at birth was a British subject"? Who are these persons who are British subjects? What I cannot help thinking is that this raises the point which we shall meet in later Amendments—the case of the women. I cannot think of any others, British subjects, who would be dealt with in this way. What I understand is that you are dealing with the case of the woman, originally a British-born subject, who marries an alien; then the alien gets a certificate of naturalisation, and thereupon the wife recovers her British nationality. You wish to withdraw this certificate of nationality, and you say that this revocation shall not apply to the wife because she was originally a British-born subject. So far so good. But then, surely, you should leave out the words "unless the Secretary of State otherwise orders," because that gives a power to the Secretary of State once more to expatriate the woman who was originally British-born and who has only become an alien automatically and compulsorily by the accident of marriage! You turn her into the condition, into which apparently she belongs, of no nationality whatever! I do not think that is a power which ought to be exercised by the Home Secretary in this way. If there is some reason against the person, deal with the matter under the other Sub-sections of your Clause. If there is any suspicion of any contact with the enemy, if there is any reason to suppose that she is not right and proper to be a British citizen, deal with her on that ground, and not merely on this automatic ground, making her exposed to the loss of her nationality merely because a certificate of naturalisation has been granted at a particular place. That seems
1104
to me to be thoroughly unjust. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to omit these words.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not attach importance to these words. I meant to deal with the case of the British-born widow alien who might herself be under suspicion.
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
Further Amendment made: In Substituted Clause 7 (2), leave out the word "provision" ["the foregoing provision"], and insert instead thereof the word "provisions."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Mr. PENNEFATHER: beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), after the word "satisfied" ["in any case in which he is satisfied after such inquiry"], to insert the words "either before or."
I do not think that the Home Secretary will be able to claim that this Amendment of mine shows any lack of confidence in him or his successors. As a matter of fact, the effect of it will be not in anyway to limit the powers of the Home Secretary, but somewhat to increase them. I cannot help thinking that the Clause as it stands at present does limit the powers of the Home Secretary in a manner which is unnecessary. As it read, the Secretary of State
"may by Order revoke a certificate of naturalisation granted by him in any case in which he is satisfied after such inquiry as is hereinafter specified."
Then it goes on to give the grounds upon which the revocation may take place. But surely it is not necessary to refer to the Committee proposed to be set up, consisting of high judicial authorities, questions of fact, such as that referred to in paragraph (b) of the Sub-section, where for example, a man who
"(b) has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate been sentenced by any Court in His Majesty's Dominions to imprisonment….or penal servitude."
Surely that is a fact that can be ascertained by the Home Office without referring to this semi-judicial Committee? There may be, too, cases where the person has shown himself by overt act or speech to be disloyal, and these are questions of fact. I submit that the Home Secretary ought to be able, in certain cases, on his own responsibility to revoke the certificates without waiting for or troubling the

1105
proposed Committee. My Amendment would leave a discretion with the Home Secretary in cases so clear and so plain that there was really no mystery about them.
Mr. STEWART: May I ask the Home Secretary whether the Court of Inquiry that is proposed to be held will be private or will it be an open Court?
Sir G. CAVE: That arises on another Sub-section. I do not like the form of this Amendment because it contemplates an inquiry of some kind. I prefer the words of the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield (Major Newman) to insert the words "but the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit before making such order, refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified." That seems to me to be a reasonable Amendment, and these words which I am accepting refer to Subsection (2) on the Paper.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I agree that the Home Secretary has found out a weak point in the wording of this Amendment, and as he desires to adopt the Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend, I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), to leave out the words "after such inquiry as is hereinafter specified."
Sir G. CAVE: I accept this Amendment.
Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: I understand that the Bill originally did give these people, whose certificates of naturalisation are going to be revoked, the benefit of an inquiry, but now that is lost to them. If the Secretary of State can make up his mind without an inquiry, then the certificate will be withdrawn. That puts these people in a worse position because under the Bill as drafted there was at least the safeguard that there might be an open inquiry, but now the matter is to be settled by the fiat of the Home Secretary. I am not quite clear that that is so safe as the original safeguard. Of course it all depends on the administration. If the Home Secretary has any doubt he can hand the matter over for an inquiry, but, on the other hand, he could act at his own will and caprice and perhaps at the driving of forces outside. I am not clear whether the Home Secretary by accepting this proposal has not
1106
in that way removed some of the safeguards which he originally provided in the Bill, and he has deprived the people who are going to be subject to this drastic procedure of safeguards which he originally proposed.
Mr. HEMMERDE: Although one has every confidence in the present Home Secretary it is not a confidence that one always has in the Home Secretary. Besides this, you are giving the right hon. Gentleman a rather difficult task. It is true there are cases so clear that the Home Secretary might not think it worth while to refer them to a Committee, but the proper course in that case is to say that if the Home Secretary acts on his own initiative the person concerned should have a right of appeal to the Committee. This is exactly analogous to the procedure adopted under the Non-Ferrous Metal Bill. If the Home Secretary does act on his own initiative, I think there should be a right of appeal before the Committee. Again, to accept this Amendment is putting a very unpleasant duty on the Home Secretary, and it is also whittling down certain safeguards in the Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the whole bearings of the question, and I am sure if he accepts this proposal it will cause the Home Office a great deal of trouble.
Sir F. BANBURY: I understand the effect of this Amendment will be to alter the Bill very considerably, and it will take away the duty of having an inquiry, and will give to the Home Secretary the power of revoking naturalisation certificates without any inquiry at all. That may be a very difficult position for the Home Secretary. I voted in favour of "shall" being substituted for "may," because I desired to strengthen the Bill, but I think we must be very careful in this matter. I understand from what the right hon. Gentleman has said there is to be a further Amendment, but we do not know what it is. I have looked at the words on the Paper, and, as far as I can make out, they are as follows: "But the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, before making such order, refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified." What will the effect of those words be? We were told that "may" might mean "shall," and when the question was raised again the Home Secretary said, "No, it does not mean 'shall' where 'if he thinks fit' follows after 'may.'" Therefore, in this

1107
Amendment it is perfectly clear that the word "may" leaves it to the Home Secretary, and therefore the Amendment is really useless. It does not provide for there being an inquiry, as was originally provided for in the Bill. I should like some explanation on this point.
Mr. D. MASON: I should like the Home Secretary to agree to the suggestion which has been made in regard to there being a right of appeal, a suggestion which has been supported by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). There might be many cases where there should be a right of appeal where there has been some miscarriage of justice and where the person has not been fairly dealt with. If the right hon. Gentleman sees his way to accept this Amendment, I hope he will also have regard to the other side and allow a right of appeal.
Mr. PETO: I hope the Home Secretary will adhere to the position which he has taken up. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London considers that this Amendment will alter the form of the Bill. Certainly it will. I understand that we are here to alter it, and many of us are here to strengthen this Bill. Every hon. Member who has spoken has omitted to address himself to the subject raised in paragraphs (a), (b), (c), and (d) of Sub-section (2). What are the cases really involved? Paragraph (b) relates to a person who
"has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate been sentenced by any Court in His Majesty's Dominions to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude."
Surely it is not necessary to have an inquiry to find out if that is so or not. In any case where there is any doubt as to whether an inquiry is needed, the Home Secretary will grant an inquiry. If we are to leave any power in the hands of the Home Office, surely it is precisely in such cases as those raised under this Sub-section where you should leave him some discretion. Why should there be discretion when you are weakening the Bill, and never when it is a case of strengthening it? The Amendment is not only an improvement, but it gives the Home Secretary the power he ought to have to exercise discretion which he ought to use, and to deal summarily with some cases in regard to these naturalisation certificates.
1108
I hope the Home Secretary will not be influenced by what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London.
Mr. DENNISS: I would like to ask the Home Secretary what words he intends to insert? Are they the same words as have already been inserted at the end of Sub-section (1)?
Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
Mr. DENNISS: Then that makes the Bill symmetrical, and there can be no objection to it.
Mr. HEMMERDE: Would it not be possible to meet the case by inserting the words "the Secretary of State may if he thinks fit and shall if required to by the holder of the certificate before making such an order refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified."
Mr. DENNISS: I think that can be moved when we reach that Clause.
Sir G. CAVE: I quite agree that in most cases under paragraph (a) or (c) the Home Secretary would rather have an inquiry, but there might be cases under paragraph (b) where it is quite clear that the person has been sentenced, and in such cases the Home Secretary ought to have power to act at once. I am quite sure that power will be rarely exercised, and, after all, you are only asking the Committee to do here what you have already-done in Sub-section (1).
6.0 P.M.
Sir F. BANBURY: I do not agree that this is weakening the Bill, for I think it is strengthening it. There will be no difficulty whatever in cases where a person has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude, but when you come to such questions as to whether the person has shown himself by overt act or speech to be disloyal to His Majesty, I do not see how you are going to find that out without an inquiry. It might be possible that an accusation might be brought against a man for having done certain things. I am not satisfied that he is a person who ought to have his certificate revoked. On the other hand, if there were an inquiry facts might come out not known to the Home Secretary or to the person bringing the accusation. You will not be wrong in granting an inquiry, but you may be by refusing to have an inquiry.
Major NEWMAN: Would it not be better if my original suggestion were carried out, and if the words "if he thinks fit" were left out here and put in later.
Sir G. CAVE: The words later apply only to Sub-section (2).
Mr. C. ROBERTS: The suggestion that has been made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Norfolk (Mr. Hemmerde) would seem to me to meet the case. If the Home Secretary wishes to take these words out here in order to have the subsequent Amendment, I hope he will be willing to consider an Amendment there which would give a right of appeal in certain cases. It would be much more satisfactory, for instance, in the case of a person charged with uttering something disloyal in his speech to have an inquiry. I entirely agree with the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) that you might quite easily have a case where the Home Secretary said, "I am not bound to give an inquiry at all; I will settle it myself." It might, however, be far more desirable in the public interest that an inquiry should be held. Under the circumstances, I think the matter can hardly be left in the present position, and that later an Amendment will have to be moved in order to give a right of appeal in some circumstances.
Amendment agreed to.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move in substituted Clause 7(2), after the word "either" to insert
"(a) has without lawful authority held any communication with any enemy state or subject of an enemy state, or has been guilty of any other act or conduct which was or is calculated to be dangerous or injurious to the public welfare."
I have in mind cases in which breaches of the Defence of the Realm Act have been committed, such, for instance, as communicating with the enemy. Regulation 18 makes it, and very properly makes it, a very grave offence to communicate naval or military information as to the movement of ships or of forces or of war materials, or as to war operations, and so on. I am sorry to say that breaches of that regulation have occurred during the War, and they may occur in future. At present there is nothing in the world to enable the Home Secretary, if a man who has become naturalised during the War commits a grave breach of that sort, to denaturalise
1110
him. Possibly such a ease might come under the words "done some disloyal act," but I do not want to leave any doubt. I want to put it as a most definite and clear reason for revoking a certificate; if a man has communicated with an enemy State in the manner suggested. The rest of the words are consequential, but they are important. If the Committee to whom the matter is referred finds that he has been guilty of an act calculated to-be injurious or dangerous to the welfare of the State surely his naturalisation certificate ought to be revoked. I, therefore, ask the Home Secretary to put in these words in order to make it quite clear that a person guilty of these acts should no longer be entitled to be naturalised.
Sir G. CAVE: The words of the Amendment are rather vague and wide. If a man has been guilty of an unlawful act such as that which my hon. and learned Friend describes he ought to be denaturalised, and no doubt he would be under paragraphs (a) or (b), but I am a little afraid of taking power to denaturalise everyone who performs an act which is calculated to be injurious or dangerous to the public welfare. You may have many different views as to what is injurious to the public welfare, and, on the whole, I think it would not be wise to have a Minister acting on his own view as to what may be injurious. A better way of dealing with the point will arise upon the next Amendment dealing with trading with the enemy, which is a well-known form of misconduct. I do not think that we ought to accept these very wide words, "calculated to be injurious and dangerous to the public welfare."
Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, if he objects to the latter part of the Amendment as being too wide, he will take the opening words, which are very clear and definite and which are really justified and founded upon the Defence of the Realm Regulations? "Has, without lawful authority, held any communication with any enemy State or subject of an enemy State." That is a totally distinct matter from trading with the enemy. It is an offence far more grave and dangerous than trading with the enemy.
Mr. DENNISS: It seems to me quite clear that the mischief which my hon. and learned Friend wants to cure would not be met by the Amendment of the

1111
hon. Member for Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities (Sir H. Craik), because that Amendment says "has traded with the enemy or in any other way aided and abetted the enemy." That would be in the way of trading, because those words are ejusdem generis, and I do not think that they would include such an offence as my hon. and learned Friend suggests. If this Amendment is not accepted, I must ask the Home Secretary later on to reduce the period of twelve months in paragraph (b). That is a very serious sentence, and it does not say whether it is with or without hard labour. Any sentence which carries with it hard labour ought to be sufficient to call for the revocation of a man's naturalisation certificate. I hope the Home Secretary when he comes to that paragraph will see the necessity of making the term of imprisonment shorter, so as to make it apply to all cases in which hard labour has been ordered.
Sir R. COOPER: The circumstances under which the Home Secretary can revoke a certificate of naturalisation are very limited under this Clause, and I feel that something is wanted in the nature of the Amendment moved by my hon. and learned Friend. If the Home Secretary does not feel that the latter part of the Amendment could with wisdom be put into the Bill, I certainly think that the first part ought to be inserted even if the later Amendment is accepted relating to trading with the enemy. After all, it does not bind him to act because even then he has a certain amount of discretion, but it does widen a little the scope of the dangerous acts for which persons may have their certificates revoked. For my part, I would like to have something that was properly worded after the nature of the latter part of this Amendment. There is a case that I have in mind with which I am very dissatisfied. I know that the Home Secretary is not, because he is responsible. It is the case of Princess Lowenstein, who was naturalised only last month. Personally I think that in a case like that where a person has been guilty of an offence the Home Secretary ought to have the power to revoke the certificate, if in his discretion he thinks it right to do so. Under this Clause the circumstances under which he can revoke certificates of naturalisation are very limited, and I do hope that he will con-
1112
sider whether the first part of the Amendment might with wisdom be embodied in the Bill.
Mr. PETO: I wish to press the Home Secretary to accept the first part of this Amendment in perhaps a somewhat different form. The Home Secretary did not hold that no words were necessary. He merely objected to the words of my hon. and learned Friend as being rather too wide. Surely it is necessary to have something more than paragraphs (a) and (b)! You have in this Amendment a perfectly definite class of act, and I suggest that the Home Secretary should accept the earlier part of it in this form: "has without lawful authority held any communication with any enemy State or subject of an enemy State." You would then have something perfectly definite in the Bill covering an offence against the State which I think it is the universal opinion should certainly not be committed by any naturalised person without instantly involving the revocation of the certificate of naturalisation. I think the Government would be very much misunderstood if they refused to accept the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend in this limited form in view of the fact that the Secretary of State has made it quite clear that he does not think it inappropriate, and that his only objection is that the latter part of the Amendment is somewhat too wide. I therefore hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment in the form that I suggest.
Mr. HEMMERDE: It seems to me—I do not know whether the Home Secretary-can tell the House whether it is so or not—that the words of paragraph (a), "has shown himself by overt act or speech to be disloyal to His Majesty," would clearly cover the suggestions that have been made in a very much better form. I think those words are quite sufficient in law. I also want to ask the Home Secretary not to be led away by the plausible suggestion of making the period of imprisonment less. In all Statutes dealing with the taking away of rights or privileges there has always been some sort of period of imprisonment put in. If you do not put it in, you will find most awful cases arising where, perhaps, people have been sentenced to imprisonment for taking part in a riot at a public meeting, and that sort of thing, which will raise very difficult problems for the Home Secretary. A period of

1113
twelve months' imprisonment nearly always means some dishonesty, and everyone will agree that in a case like that it is fitting a person should lose his rights. But to make it two or three months is a very different thing. If you insert that period, you would find that the tribunals would impose sentences less then they otherwise would do in order to avoid taking away a person's rights.
Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would accept the limited form of words?
Sir G. CAVE: I would rather not take the Amendment here, but I shall be glad to consider it at the end of paragraph (a). I am trying to arrive at words which will include trading with the enemy. At that point I will consider the matter.
Amendment negatived.
Sir J. BUTCHER: With regard to the next Amendment, dealing with trading with the enemy, I understand that the right hon. Gentleman desires that it should be moved a little later on?
Sir G. CAVE: Yes; at the end of paragraph (a).
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: It is not very material where these words come in. However, the hon. Member can postpone the Amendment.
Mr. PETO: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), after paragraph (a), to add,
"(b) was at the commencement of the War engaged in a business carried on wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which is now our enemy or for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of such country."
This is somewhat different in substance and effect from the Amendment with which we have already dealt, because if a person who has been granted a certificate of naturalisation has been found at the commencement of the War to have been engaged in business wholly or mainly in association with subjects of a country which is now our enemy or for the benefit of or under the control of subjects of such country, it would certainly be evidence that the certificate of naturalisation had been taken out for the benefit of the trade of a foreign country which has become our enemy, and therefore the person who had got the naturalisation papers was not, in the commerce he was carrying on, considering in any way the interests or advantage of the country
1114
which had sheltered him and given him naturalisation, but of the country of which he was really a citizen. The Amendment would remove from the roll of naturalised citizens of this country a certain number of persons who had merely made a convenience of naturalisation and had made naturalisation as British citizens a cloak for more successfully carrying on business entirely for the benefit of the country of their origin. Therefore, I hope the Home Secretary will accept these words and show by their incorporation in the Bill that naturalisation is intended to be a real act, proving that the person who is naturalised is going to throw in his lot not only with this country as a whole, but with the trade and commerce of this country, which, if it is carried on by British citizens, redounds in its aggregate to the benefit of the people of this country as a nation. Undoubtedly, if we consider the character of much of the trade that was carried on in this country in the past and in various parts of His Majesty's Dominions overseas, we find this penetration by foreign powers who are now our enemies in every part of the world, and we do not want to assist that penetration Of our business and commerce in every part of the British Empire by giving freely to these persons of alien origin the cloak of naturalisation, which, particularly when coupled with a change of name, enables them to disguise themselves as British citizens entirely for the benefit of the country of which they are really citizens, namely, the country of their origin. Of all the reasons for revoking a certificate of naturalisation there is no reason which has more right to be incorporated in this Bill than the one referred to in this Amendment, which shows conclusively that it is a case in which the naturalisation papers should never have been granted, that naturalisation has been used merely as a convenience and as a method of defeating genuine British trade and industry, and of carrying on an alien trade and industry under the guise of being British.
Sir G. CAVE: I could not accept this Amendment. The effect of it would be that if a man before the War was in partnership with a German or an Austrian or an Armenian, or even with an Alsatian, he would be liable to the revocation of his naturalisation. These acts of partnership may be illegal after the War has begun as acts of war, but they were not illegal before the War. It would be very

1115
wrong to make those acts which were legal at the time the subject of the penalty of loss of naturalisation after the War. Therefore, I do not think this Amendment can be accepted.
Mr. PETO: Before the right hon. Gentleman finally refuses to accept the Amendment, may I put these considerations to him? In the case of a Turk or an Armenian firm, could not the person be satisfied to remain a Turk or Armenian? There is nothing illegal in carrying on business as a Turk or Armenian or having an agency here. I fail to see why a Turk, having taken an English name, should be protected by naturalisation papers, and consequently be able to masquerade as a British citizen and induce people to think that when they are trading with that firm they are trading with a British firm instead of a Turkish or Armenian firm. If it is a genuine business, why should the man be ashamed of the nationality of his origin?
Sir O. PHILIPPS: The Amendment is worth a little more consideration than the Home Secretary has given it. It is aimed at peaceful penetration by the enemy. If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to accept it this evening, I hope he will see his way to accept it or something very similar when we reach the Report stage. It is an attempt to meet a real want.
Mr. BIGLAND: There is a class of German and Austrian in this country who has no capital interest whatever in the business he is conducting. I know that it is difficult to frame an Amendment to meet these cases. These men simply live and travel in this country. Many of them are naturalised in order to push the goods of the foreign manufacturer. They have no real interest in this country at all. It seems to me that such firms should engage British people as agents, or the person who travels should be known to be a German. He should not be allowed to take the position of a British citizen. I admit it is very dfficult to draft words, but what my hon. Friend really intends by the Amendment is that where men who have no capital whatever invested in this country but are simply acting for a foreigner who is our enemy, the certificate of naturalisation should be revoked. In such case the revocation of the naturalisation papers is quite justifiable.
Mr. STEWART: If the right hon. Gentleman further considers the Amendment before the next stage I hope he will see that the real point is that a good many people take out naturalisation papers for the sake of changing their names. I understand that if they remain the subjects of an enemy State we have more control over them, but if a man once becomes a British citizen he is at liberty to change his name as and when he pleases. Of that I am not quite sure. It is the case that a good deal of business has been carried on by so-called naturalised Englishmen who have really become naturalised for the very purpose of changing their names, hiding their antecedents, and deceiving the people with whom they trade.
Sir J. WALTON: Could not my right hon. Friend give the British trader some protection by requiring that naturalised British subjects, when registering at hotels and in documents, should not be allowed to describe themselves as British subjects, but rather as naturalised British subjects, so that we might know to some extent where we are. There are those who have changed their names as a cloak, and who carry on business in this country in a rather deceptive fashion. They ought to be compelled, if they use British names, to insert, in brackets, after their British names also the name they had previously to adopting the British name. We ought to be safeguarded in this country from peaceful penetration by having fuller information as to who exactly are the people, and of what nationality they are with whom we are brought into contact in trade and business.
Sir G. CAVE: It is quite true that there are provisions in the Business Names Act and in the Aliens Order on this point. I do not think, however, that everyone ought to be brought in, as this Amendment would bring them in. Undoubtedly there are many in the position outlined just now whom I would rather not see on the register of British subjects, but I do not think that everyone who before the War acted for a foreign firm, ought, ipso facto, to be denaturalised. That is why I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Sir O. PHILIPPS: May I at this stage propose the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher)—After

1117
paragraph (a), to insert the words "(b) has without lawful authority traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of an enemy State."
Mr. PENNEFATHER: On a point of Order. May I ask whether, if we now deal with the Amendments at the end of paragraph (a), we shall be ruled out from moving Amendments standing on the first line of paragraph (a)?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I do not think it is very material in what order we take the Amendments.
Sir G. CAVE: I think it would be more convenient, as a matter of drafting, if we take the Amendments to the first line of the paragraph first.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Very well.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2, a), after the word "or" ["disloyal to His Majesty or"], to insert the words,
"unfriendly to British interests or has been associated with any firm or person placed upon the statutory black list or."
I am quite aware that in adding these words I am placing in the hands of the Home Secretary and the Committee which is to be set up larger powers than are given in the Bill, but I am extremely anxious to extend the powers in the Bill as far as they can fairly and reasonably be extended. When the War is over and the Germans attempt to repenetrate this country they will require tools with which to penetrate, and the most natural tools which will come to their hands will be their own kith and kin—Germans who have been naturalised but who are not really friendly to this country, and who during the War perhaps will have given us opportunities which we can lay hold of by which we can prove that they have been unfriendly. Therefore, I think we ought to extend the Bill so as to make it possible for the Home Secretary and the Committee to revoke the naturalisation papers of such enemy aliens as really deserve to have them revoked. It is thoroughly understood that if we give a certificate of naturalisation to an alien it imposes upon him the moral obligation that he should be friendly to the country of his adoption, and if it can be proved that he has been unfriendly during this crisis of our national history, there ought to be power to cancel his certificate. The second part of the Amendment is a most important point.
1118
All these naturalised Britishers of enemy origin are not in this country at present. Many of them are in neutral countries. I know cases of Germans naturalised in this country who, as soon as war broke out, took up their residence in neutral countries. I do not suppose they did that for the good of England, and the question arises, What are they doing in those countries? In each of those neutral countries we have established a statutory Black List, a list of neutral firms who, by reason of friendliness to the enemy, trading with the enemy, or some other reason injurious to this country, have been placed on the list. I believe many naturalised Germans who are living in neutral countries are in close contact with these firms whom we have placed upon the Black List, and if it can be shown that a naturalised British subject has left this country during the War and has been in close association with such a firm, he has proved himself to be unfriendly to this country and acting against our interests, and his naturalisation certificate ought undoubtedly to be cancelled.
Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid the objection I raised to the last Amendment also applies to this. The whole scheme of the Bill is that if a man has been guilty of an offence against the law he shall be liable to lose his British citizenship, but to put it in the power of anyone to say "This man is unfriendly to British interests" is to give too wide a power. I am very much in sympathy with the desire to protect British trade and to prevent this kind of thing during and after the War, but to say that whenever a man can be proved to have done something unfriendly to us or to have had associations, perhaps unknowingly, with a person who afterwards came on the statutory Black List would be putting oneself in the position of doing possible injustice. Some of us know that people go on the statutory Black List and come off again. There have been a good many firms which have got on the list and afterwards proved their good faith and been taken off. This would cover association even with those firms before they got on to the list, and possibly before the War. The thing is too wide. We are not passing a Statute to prevent these things. We are passing a Statute imposing very heavy penalties and loss upon persons, and we have to be very careful not to

1119
impose it until we have clear and definite proof against the persons concerned. I am disposed to accept the next Amendment—"trading with the enemy or communicating." That would really cover bad cases of the kind which my hon. Friend has in mind.
Mr. BIGLAND: I support the Amendment because it is only right, in my view, that if a man who holds naturalisation papers leaves this country and does in neutral countries things which, if he had remained in this country, would have brought him under some of the categories named here, that should certainly be an offence under this Act, and I would suggest to my hon. Friend that he should alter the Amendment by putting in words to cover those men who hold naturalisation papers, but who during the War have not lived in this country, and in whose case evidence was brought as to what they had been doing. I am sure what my hon. Friend says is perfectly true. Naturalised British subjects who left this country immediately war was declared have been engaged in most nefarious and unfriendly acts during this period, and I hope in some way they will be brought into the category which the Home Secretary is drafting in order to do what is right and just under this Act.
Mr. NEVILLE: It seems to me that what fell from the Home Secretary just now proves conclusively the necessity of dealing with the question in time of war from a different point of view from that in the normal condition of things. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say he saw no objection to this proposal if it merely continued during the War. When you get to a state of war you have to look at things from an entirely different standpoint. You have to protect your people. That is what you are here for, and not to make it nice and sweet and pleasant for people who have enjoyed your hospitality and very often abused it for years, or if not, took advantage of the War to abuse it as soon as it arose. You ought to deal with every alien and say, "You have to justify your position and your right to your naturalisation papers." It is very important indeed to extend the ground upon which these matters can be treated. The Bill proposes that there must have been some overt act or speech. We all know how difficult it is to prove an overt act. These things are not done on
1120
the housetops. They are generally done in the secrecy of the closet, and it is not the sort of thing which you would expect to-find in overt acts or speeches. An enormous amount of prejudice to this country is done secretly and in in an underhand manner, and it is very important that we should extend the grounds upon which we can denaturalise aliens in such a way as to offer protection to our own people and not to make it as difficult as possible to denaturalise them. If you did that people would attach a great deal more value to naturalisation than has ever attached to-it in the past. People have been enabled to be naturalised just like shelling peas. They simply have to sign their names. If they knew that when war came on the whole thing was going to be looked at from an entirely different point of view and that they were likely to have their privileges taken away, they would consider twice before they did anything, openly or secretly, of an unfriendly nature which might rob them of the protection afforded by naturalisation.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I think my hon. Friend has hit the right note. The main object of the Bill is to protect ourselves in time of war, and that is why we are discussing it to-day. If it were not an, urgent matter in which it is necessary to act promptly in order to protect ourselves and ensure our safety, we should not be discussing it to-day, but we should wait till the general Bill comes up after the War.
The CHAIRMAN: I hope we are not going to have a Second Reading Debate.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I was not proposing to do that. We are in this difficulty to-day. We have a lot of dangerous scoundrels in this country of enemy origin, and some of these dangerous ruffians protect themselves under the cloak of British naturalisation. It is impossible for us to put them under lock and key unless we denaturalise them, or can bring them within the scope of 14B of the Defence of the Realm Regulations; 14B is a very admirable Regulation, but it is a difficult and troublesome job to get a man under that and lock him up. We should protect ourselves by denaturalising people in proper cases and then locking them up. That is necessary for our safety. I support this Amendment on this ground, that I think it is most desirable that we should specify, as clearly as we can, the sort of

1121
cases to which it is intended to apply. We do not want to have everything vague and in the air. The hon. Member for Norfolk was good enough to say a little while ago that a number of these acts, trading with the enemy and communicating with him, might possibly be brought in under a Clause of the Bill. I do not want legal discussions as to whether or not they would come under different Clauses, but I wish to make it quite plain on the face of the Bill for what reason you can revoke a certificate. If there are definite things for which the House thinks there are reasons for making a certificate revocable, they should be put into the Bill. I hope the Home Secretary, if he cannot accept the exact words of the Amendment, will consider it before the Report stage. I confess my attitude as to further Amendments would be largely influenced by knowing what the Home Secretary was going to do on the Amendment which comes later on—I do not know if I should be in order in asking what his attitude might be on the point. That Amendment proposes that the Home Secretary shall have power to revoke a certificate in any case where a continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good. I desire that that Amendment should be accepted, because I trust the Home, Secretary, I trust his discretion, and I know he will not abuse such a power. It is most essential that he should have such a power to act in cases which could not otherwise be dealt with. If the right hon. Gentleman will accept that proposal it will give him the power to revoke a certificate in cases for which we have not clearly provided. Perhaps he will let me know when he comes to the Amendment. If he is not going to have that general and wide power—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That shows that I ought not to have allowed the Debate to proceed on the broad lines upon which it has been running for the last ten minutes. We really must keep to the Amendment. Over and over again Second-Reading speeches are delivered which are really not relevant to the Amendment under discussion. The point of this Amendment is the statutory Black List; that is what differentiates it from the other Amendments.
Sir J. BUTCHER: The whole point of my argument up to now has been that we must revise these definite cases, and that we cannot leave the matter in the air. I do
1122
ask the right hon. Gentleman to promise, if he can, that before the Report stage he will bring in words to provide that these very definite cases, which, I think, constitute a distinct danger, will be dealt with.
Mr. DENNISS: May I make a suggestion to the Home Secretary which might meet the case. I understand that he is going to accept an Amendment presently which stands in the name of the hon. Member for the St. Augustine's Division (Mr. McNeill), to add the words "has traded with the enemy," and that he will insert the words "or communicated with the enemy." Might he not accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for York, with these words inserted after it: "or has been associated with any person who has been engaged in trading with or in communication with the enemy." I think it would include all the cases of the Black List. Then the Amendment of the hon. Member for St. Augustine's—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This is beyond the scope of the Amendment.
Mr. D. MASON: The hon. Member for York says the proposals in the Bill are vague, and that he wants something definite. We are promised something definite.
Colonel GRETTON: Those who have seen the practical working of the Black List system know that those persons who get on to the statutory Black List are very seldom removed. There is what is called A Black List which is subject to changes in character, but the statutory Black List has a much more fixed and definite status. There are a large number of businesses in this country of enemy association since the War which it is desirable to wind up. This Amendment, denaturalising persons who have such businesses, will have a very useful purpose indeed. I very much regret that the right hon. Gentleman has somewhat summarily dismissed the Amendment without giving it the consideration which, in the opinion of many hon. Members, it really deserves in its underlying purpose, though the words may not meet with his approval. I would appeal to him to reconsider it in view of its underlying policy.
Sir G. CAVE: I will certainly do that. I will carefully consider it, but I am afraid the words as they stand would not work.

1123
We might have more definite words, but they cannot come in here; they must come in on a later Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Sir O. PHILIPPS:I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), at the end of paragraph (a, to insert,
"(b) has unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of an enemy State; or."
Any naturalised person can only justify the fact of his naturalisation, and ought only to be allowed to continue if he has a clean record. Any naturalised person who at any time unlawfully trades with the enemy, or unlawfully communicates with him, undoubtedly forfeits any right he has to be a British subject. I therefore have much pleasure in proposing this Amendment, which, in my view, will very considerably strengthen the Bill.
Mr. DENNISS: I now suggest, as an Amendment, that it should read as follows:
"has traded or communicated with the enemy, or been associated with any person who has been engeged in trading or communicating with the enemy."
That would be wide enough to cover business communications, business trading, and business association of any kind. It would be wider than having them merely on the black list. It need not deal with a person who is on the black list, but it might deal with just as dangerous a person who was not on the list. It is a wider definition altogether, and would include anybody who has been associated with any person who has been engaged in business with the enemy, in trading with them or in communicating with them in any way. Of course, in business, communicating might be sufficient, because you must communicate with an enemy if you have business with him, but, as this Amendment makes a distinction between communication and trading, these words are inserted as the result of suggestions I have been making to the right hon. Gentleman, who, I am sure, is doing his best to find some words which will meet the spirit of the Amendment moved just now.
Mr. D. MASON: I think the last Amendment contains rather wide and vague words. Of the two, I think the original Amendment is much the better one.
Sir G. CAVE: I am quite willing to accept the proposal of my hon. Friend
1124
(Sir O. Philipps), and I will try to find words which will carry out the intention of the House. Would these do?—
"Has, during the present War, unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy or with the subject of an enemy State, or been engaged in or associated with any business carried on in such manner as to assist the enemy in the War; or."
That would meet the point, and it would cover personal communication of certain kind. It would cover the Black List and other things.
Major BOWDEN: Would that raise a legal point? The words are "to assist" the enemy. What about assisting or attempting to assist?
Sir G. CAVE: "In such manner as to assist."
Mr. HOLT: I would like the Home Secretary to consider a little more carefully the word he is going to put in. The word "associated" is very dangerous indeed. Let me give a case which occurred during the War. Everyone will agree that a man who has money in a business is associated with it. Two persons were sent to gaol for trading with the enemy. The Leader of the House was associated with the business, but he knew nothing whatever about it. Everybody knows what happened: the Leader of the House had some money in the firm and had been a partner in the firm for a long time. The point is that a precisely similar incident might happen to somebody else. There might be a man who was naturalised here and had the same sort of association with a firm, and had for years past washed his hands of all connection with the firm and had nothing to do with the business, but who had left a little money in it. His late partners, without his knowledge, might do what was wrong; they might be convicted on that, and he would there and then be liable to have his certificate of naturalisation taken away. The Home Secretary ought not to agree to any proposal to make a man liable to a penalty unless it could be shown that the man himself had been a party to doing something wrong.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment, and move it in the new form.
Mr. SHERWELL: I would suggest that we might have a little further guidance on the point which has been raised.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member will have an opportunity of speaking after I have put the question.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir O. PHILIPPS: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7(2), after paragraph (a), to insert,
"(b) has, during the present War, unlawfully traded or communicated with the enemy, or the subject of an enemy State, or been engaged in or associated with any business carried on in such a manner as to assist the enemy in the War, or."
7.0 P.M.
Mr. SHERWELL: I rise only for the purpose of suggesting that, in view of the very great possibility which has occurred to Members of this House, and which has been so well put by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt), we ought to have some assurance from the Home Secretary that he is satisfied that this Amendment will not open the way to possibilities of the kind indicated by my hon. Friend. Undoubtedly there are many persons who might be caught within the scope of this Clause, and who essentially, and so far as intention and knowledge are concerned, would be perfectly innocent. Yet they might be made the victims of a phrase of this nature. I do not think the Committee should accept this Amendment too lightly. We ought to have an explicit assurance on the point. We ought not to be called upon to come to a decision on the matter until the point has been cleared up.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not think any injustice could be done under the Bill with this Amendment in it. In the first place, it is provided that the Home Secretary "may" revoke the certificate. He is not bound to do it. There must be a finding of some tribunal that the man has been associated with enemy aliens and that his removal would be conducive to the public good. In the third place, you have the safeguard that the Home Secretary, in such a case as this, would not be likely to act on his own initiative. He would certainly ask that the matter be referred to the Advisory Committee.
Mr. HOLT: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "or associated with."
I want to raise a clear issue on this point. I do not think the Home Secretary's explanation is at all satisfactory. It is not right that a man who has done
1126
nothing wrong should hold his position as a British citizen on sufferance. It is not the same thing to be a British citizen by right, and to be a British citizen at the discretion of the Home Secretary. It is subjecting a man to a very serious penalty to take away his right and leave him subject to somebody's discretion. There is no justification for imposing such a penalty on any man unless it can be shown that he himself is or has been a party to something wrong. It is not sufficient to suggest in a vague sort of way that he is associated with the person who has done the wrong thing.
Sir G. CAVE: It is not a question of associating with a person. The words are "associated with any business."
Mr. H. SAMUEL: I have some doubt whether the Amendment does not require further consideration. Of course if a man is knowingly associated with any enterprise favouring the enemy he ought properly to be denaturalised. On the other hand you may find persons entirely innocently, without knowing in the least what is being done by some company in which they happen to have shares, who will have their naturalisation imperilled through no act of their own. That is to place them in a very invidious position. Would it not be desirable, therefore, to introduce the word "knowingly" before "associated"? A man ought not to be placed in the position of having his naturalisation threatened because of something done of which he had no knowledge whatever. The other point to which I would like to refer arises in connection with the use of the words "during the present War." The Amendment on the Paper refers to the enemy. Of course we here are very conscious every hour and every minute of the day that we are engaged in war, and therefore when we use the words "the enemy," we mean the enemy in the present War. But this will be a permanent statute. Thanks to the excellent proposal in the last Clause, the very words of this Bill will be inserted in the Statute of 1914. The original words of the Act of 1014 will be taken out, and the new words will be substituted permanently in the Statute. If you use the term "in the present War" what war will then be meant? We mean now the War in which we are engaged, but when this Statute comes to be read ten or twenty years hence, what then will be the meaning attached to these words, which will

1127
appear in a Statute dated not 1918, but 1914? Will this provision be limited to the present War? If unhappily at some future date this country should be again engaged in war and if this Statute should have become permanent, it ought properly to apply to that war. Suppose twenty years from now this country is engaged in war and similar difficulties arise. Suppose there are again naturalised persons of enemy nationality trading in our midst. Why should not this provision apply to them? I suggest in these circumstances my right hon. Friend would do well to consider both these points between now and the Report stage. Perhaps he would prefer to hold the matter over until Report or will he allow the words to be inserted now and revise them, if necessary, later on?
Sir G. CAVE: I am quite willing to consider both points. Perhaps it would be better to put in the words now.
Mr. HOLT: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees to insert the word "knowingly," I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. PETO: May I suggest that the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) might be met by putting in the words "in any war in which His Majesty is engaged"? The Amendment would then be fairly complete.
Sir G. CAVE: Yes; I will take that now.
Mr. PETO: Then I will move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "during the present War," and to insert instead thereof the words "in any war in which His Majesty is engaged."
Sir G. CAVE: I accept that.
Amendment to proposed Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment to proposed Amendment made: After the word "or" ["or associated"], insert the word "knowingly."—[Mr. Holt.]
Mr. NEVILLE: Has that Amendment been accepted?
Sir G. CAVE: Yes.
Mr. NEVILLE: I would like to point out that this puts the onus on the Home Secretary to prove the disloyalty of the
1128
person concerned, whereas I suggest the onus should be on the alien to prove his loyalty.
Sir G. CAVE: I will consider that, but at present my view is that the Amendment as suggested will suffice.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Amendment requires a slight alteration at the end, I think.
Further Amendment to proposed Amendment made: Leave out the word "the" ["the enemy in the war"], and insert instead thereof the word "such."
Proposed words, as amended, there inserted.
Sir HENRY CRAIK: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2, b), to leave out the words "has within five years of the date of the grant of the certificate."
The object of this Clause, I take it, is to protect us against the influx, of the criminal class by naturalisation, and I cannot for the life of me see why that provision should be limited by any chronological consideration. Why should a man be liable to disqualification only if he has brought himself within the lash of the law within the preceding five years? If, unfortunately, a man with a criminal character has been accepted under a misapprehension, I do not think he ought to be allowed to retain his rights of citizenship here after he has proved his real character, by undergoing conviction in the Courts at any time. Surely a man might escape by some defect of the law the full exposure of his criminal tendencies for five years, and if, after five years, during which perhaps the Criminal Investigation Department has not been able to lay hands on him, he is convicted, is the Home Secretary to be deprived of the power of revising his naturalisation? Let the Committee remember that power is given to a judge, in sentencing a criminal, to deport him, and I do not think that that is limited by any condition as to the number of years of his naturalisation. A man convicted five years and a month after his naturalisation might be condemned by a Criminal Court to be deported immediately as a most undesirable alien, and a person detrimental to this country, but the Home Secretary would not be able to put him out of the country. Surely there can be no real ground for an exemption of this sort. I trust that my right hon. Friend will see his way to

1129
accept the Amendment, and broadly to lay down the rule that, if a man has proved himself at any period of his career to be a really criminal character and undesirable as a citizen, my right hon. Friend should be able to reconsider his case and cancel his naturalisation.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: It is a question whether a man could be deported who was denaturalised after sentence had been passed. I am rather inclined to think that he could not. The power to deport a person is limited to an alien, and an alien can be recommended for deportation by the Court which sentences him. In this case it is not an alien who would be sentenced, but a British subject. He would not come under the Aliens Act. Consequently, the Court could not recommend him for deportation, and the fact that he was subsequently denaturalised in consequence of the sentence of the sentence of the Court would not enable the Homo Secretary to deport him. So my hon. and learned Friend's argument, to some extent, falls to the ground.
Sir H. CRAIK: Would not the fact that we cannot deport him unless he is denaturalised be a ground for denaturalising him?
Mr. SAMUEL: He could not then be deported.
Sir G. CAVE: He could not deported for an offence committed before he was denaturalised.
Sir H. CRAIK: Could not be deported after he was denaturalised?
Sir G. CAVE: Not if he committed the offence before he was denaturalised. Is it well to use this power for the purpose of getting rid of all our undesirables? [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] If we do this other countries will do the same, and you will have every country sending back all its undesirables. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] That has not been the view that has been held. You naturalise a man for good or evil and make him a British subject, who is subject to your laws. You have not hitherto taken the power, when he commits an offence, of imposing upon him the additional penalty of losing his British nationality. The theory of this Clause, rightly or wrongly, is that if he commits an offence within a short period after naturalisation, then obviously he is not a person of good character to whom
1130
a certificate should have been given, and therefore that certificate may be reviewed. But if he commits an offence, say, twenty years later, then you would not be able to deprive him of his citizenship. That is the theory of the Bill, and I know that it is held by most people who have studied this matter.
Sir O. PHILIPPS: This is only a permissive power. There is a great deal to be said in favour of taking advantage of this Bill to get rid of a number of undesirable people who have been naturalised. If this Amendment gives a prospect of reducing the number of undesirable aliens who have been naturalised, then it is an Amendment which requires favourable consideration. Nearly everyone agrees that in the past a great many undesirable aliens have been naturalised very easily in this country, and if they have committed these offences, I think that we may fairly go back and examine the records for more than five years.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I would appeal to the Home Secretary to strike out these words. I would put this case. A man gets naturalised and commits a crime, say, within one year of naturalisation. He is a very clever scoundrel, and avoids detection for some time. After five years have elapsed he is brought to justice and sentenced to, say, twelve months' imprisonment. According to the proposal of the Bill he escapes altogether, because he has not been found out within five years of the date of naturalisation. Surely that cannot be right. My right hon. Friend admits that in a case where the man commits crimes such as those indicated and is discovered and sentenced within five years after naturalisation his certificate should very properly be cancelled. But I cannot for the life of me see why a man who, owing to his possible cleverness or exceptional scoundrelism, has not been discovered and sentenced until after five years, should go scot free.
Mr. D. MASON: He does not go scot free. He would be punished under the law.
Sir J. BUTCHER: When I say scot free, I mean scot free under this Bill, and the penalty of having his certificate revoked is not imposed on him. Take another case. A man gets naturalised. He remains a decent law-abiding person for, say, five and a half years, and then he commits some very abominable crime,

1131
for which he may be sentenced to penal servitude for twenty years. This man again is subject to none of the penalties of this Bill. The man who commits a much smaller offence six months previously, and is convicted, is liable to have the certificate revoked. Surely that cannot be right. I would suggest to my right hon. Friend that it is desirable to strike out these limiting words which lead, in some cases, at any rate, to great absurdities, and trust to the common sense and discretion of the Home Secretary not to revoke a man's certificate unless the crime is of a certain character committed in a reasonable time after naturalisation.
Mr. HOLT: I would like to ask the Home Secretary what the words to be inserted mean. Surely if the conviction is acted upon it should be acted upon with reasonable rapidity after the conviction. It would be very unfair to have this proviso acted upon perhaps ten or twenty years after the conviction had taken place, and to have this hanging over a man's head all that time. Ought not there to be a limit of time in which to enforce this provision?
Mr. PETO: I may put one further argument in favour of the elimination of these words. From this Sub-section it appears that the alien who becomes naturalised must, in order to have his certificate revoked, have been sentenced in a Court within His Majesty's Dominions. We have been talking of means of getting rid of specially undesirable aliens. But that is not so at all. Suppose that a very undesirable person comes to this country, a person who has been frequently convicted of various crimes in his own country which were not known here, why should we wish to add to our home-grown criminal classes these aliens if they commit crimes, at any rate, after five years from the date of their naturalisation? It seems to me most desirable, even from the point of view of hon. Members who believe that this country should be a sort of sanctuary for aliens of all kinds, that it should be well known that if they do commit a crime against the law of the land of which they wish to become naturalised citizens, it will inevitably mean if there is a penalty of twelve months' imprisonment or penal servitude that they will be denaturalised and cease to be British citizens. It is a most wholesome thing, considering the character of
1132
many of the persons who come to this country and become naturalised British citizens, that we should make it perfectly clear under this Bill when it is an Act that every such person shall know that he can only remain a naturalised British citizen as long as he conforms to the laws of the country in which he has become naturalised, and I do not see the slightest reason, in spite of what the Home Secretary has said, for putting in these limiting words. I agree with hon. Members who have said that it will be extremely difficult to continue such an anomalous position and that we ought to go in plainly for the principle, that if we naturalise an alien person that alien person must, as long as he wishes to keep his naturalisation, abide by the laws of the country; and if he breaks them, then he ceases to be a naturalised British citizen, because we have had, and probably shall have, quite enough difficulty with those of British origin, real British citizens who do not abide by the laws of this country. The number of such persons is diminishing. The statistics of crime in this country are diminishing, and we certainly do not want to increase them by naturalised aliens who will be perfectly immune, so far as this Bill is concerned, in committing any crime provided that they wait for five years after naturalisation before they commit it.
Colonel Sir C. SEELY: I think that there is some point in what was urged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York as to a man who may escape being caught for two or three years, and I might suggest that that can be met by leaving out these words and inserting at the end, after "penal servitude," the words "for an offence committed within five years of the date of granting his certificate." That, I think, would meet the case put by the hon. and learned Member for York, and it would also meet the obvious feeling of the Home Secretary that it is undesirable to have no limit in the Bill for reasons that, I think, are perfectly plain.
Mr. DENNISS: Perhaps I may be able to exercise a little influence with the Home Secretary in asking him to agree to this. May I refer him to the report of a case where a German father committed a terrible crime on his daughter, and a German husband, also in this country, behaved brutally to his wife, the daughter? All that occurred some years ago, and she has been recently complaining in the

1133
Courts of this country. If this Clause were different, might it not be possible to denaturalise these two men?
Mr. WATT: I wish to add my voice to those who have urged the Home Secretary to withdraw this limitation. The right hon. Gentleman advanced the view that if these words were excluded from the Subsection it would make the provision much more drastic and also might provoke retaliation in foreign countries with whom we are at war at the present time.
Sir G. CAVE: I did not say with whom we are at war.
Mr. WATT: At any rate, that there would be retaliation in foreign countries in regard to British people who had become naturalised abroad and had been in gaol for a length of time. But are we not to alter our law because of the fact of these people being in foreign countries?
Mr. SAMUEL: The point we have to consider is the consequence which will follow if we take the course proposed by the Amendment. In the first place, a naturalised alien in this country commits an offence, and even if he is denaturalised you do not get rid of him, and he cannot be deported, as I pointed out previously. He was not an alien at the time the offence was committed, and therefore the Home Secretary has not the power to deport him. That could be amended in another Statute, but it is very doubtful if you could make a provision of that sort retrospective. Consequently, he will remain here under our present law, and revert to the status of an alien; in other words, there is added to the sentence of imprisonment, the sentence, common in continental countries, but not known under our law—the sentence of deprivation of civil rights. That is what you really do. But not only that, when you deprive him of civil rights you also relieve him of civil obligations, which is a fact that is not, perhaps, in the minds of those who suggest denaturalisation too lightly. Let us assume that after the War it is necessary to maintain, unhappily, compulsory military service, which is an obligation on every citizen of the country. If you denaturalise an alien, he is no longer liable to military service, nor are his children, when they come of military age; consequently, many of these people would be only too glad to be denaturalised, because they and their children would no longer be liable to military service. That
1134
is one of the considerations which ought to be borne in mind. Another consideration is what would be the influence on a Court of law of a provision of the kind suggested. The Court of law, if it was a consequence of the sentence to be passed upon a person naturalised in this country, that he would be denaturalised, and that the result of denaturalisation would, perhaps, ruin him in his business, might take that circumstance in consideration, and perhaps might reduce the term of imprisonment six or nine months, in order that the man might not be deprived of his certificate of naturalisation. Frequently it occurs in the Courts that a lower sentence is given when it is found that a man might be deprived of his pension, for example, as a direct consequence of the sentence that otherwise would have been passed upon him, but for the fact of the ulterior consequence. A man may have been here fifteen or twenty years, and become thoroughly Anglicised, he has perhaps married an English wife and has young children, and the Court may take all that into account in imposing a sentence which is not such as they would have otherwise inflicted but for the fact of ulterior consequences. The period of five years is inserted because it has been a provision of the law that a man is not to be naturalised unless he is shown to have been of good conduct. The police make inquiries as to the man's reputation, and if he has a bad reputation he is not naturalised. In dealing with this question we have to look at all the ulterior consequences. Suppose what is now proposed were the law of the United States, and an Englishman who had gone over there in his youth, and become naturalised as an American citizen, a voter in America, and perhaps had married an American wife and become thoroughly Americanised, and suppose he committed some offence that brought him within the grip of such an American law, at the time he is a man of fifty or sixty years of age he would then be deprived of his American citizenship and would revert to his British citizenship. But that has never been the practice hitherto, and, in view of these considerations, I think the Committee will be well advised to pause before putting any provision of this kind into the Bill or pressing it upon the Home Secretary.
Mr. SHERWELL: There is one further point, namely, that unequal justice might be done in cases where a commercial

1135
crime had been committed. Suppose a naturalised subject joins a board of British directors of a commercial company, and suppose the directors are found guilty of fraud, which brings them within the scope of the law, the punishment in such a case is uniform, because the offence is of equal criminality; but whereas you sentence the three or four British directors who are natural-born subjects to a term of imprisonment, you would subject under this proposed Amendment the man who is a naturalised British subject to something over and above the punishment which attaches to the offence committed. After all, the primary idea behind all this is to pick out those who have violated their loyalty to this country, and this proposal in the ordinary cases of commercial crime goes further than the primary intention of the Movers of the Bill.
Mr. STEWART: I am thoroughly in accord with the spirit which has led to the submission of this Amendment. Why should we not take every precaution to prevent our population being recruited from criminal classes abroad? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland said that a person deprived of his naturalisation could not be deported, and that he would revert to his position of an alien. But would not the fact that deportation was hanging over an offender, act as a wholesome deterrent against his committing any other crime? At any rate, this Bill is really brought in against the Germans, and we know that a German, though he may be naturalised in another country, never loses his German citizenship, and, if a naturalised German commits a crime here, it would be a very wholesome thing to let him revert to his German nationality. I hope that if the Home Secretary does not feel inclined to accept the Amendment at the moment he will turn it over in his mind.
Sir G. CAVE: I cannot accept the Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2, b), to leave out the word "twelve" ["not less than twelve months"], and to insert instead thereof the word "six."
The adoption of that proposal would at any rate reduce by half the number of undesirables, because if a man who has
1136
been committed for six months' imprisonment loses his nationality it seems to me we would still further be increasing our power to get rid of undesirables, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see his way to accepting the Amendment. The more criminals we get rid of, the better the country will be pleased. If British people naturalised in foreign countries fall away from grace we will have to put up with retaliation in respect to them, but I do not see why we should risk our property in this country by allowing to come here aliens who, in many cases, abuse the liberal treatment they receive.
Mr. DENNISS: May I ask the Home Secretary whether Sub-clause (2) is permissive or obligatory? It seems to me that it is the latter. The most serious crimes are punished by hard labour, and the more venial crimes by imprisonment in the second division. There is a very great distinction as a rule between the crimes which are punished in the one way and in the other, and it is far more of a disgrace to a man if he has been sentenced to three months' hard labour than if he has been sentenced to twelve months in the second division. For libel a man may very well have twelve months in the second division, but the disgrace attached to it is not so great as that attaching to a highway robber sentenced to six months' hard labour. I remember a case at Manchester Assizes where a ruffian was found guilty of highway robbery—he was a sandbagging man—and he was only-sentenced to one month's imprisonment with hard labour, but he got fifty lashes with the cat. Under this Section a man who commits a serious crime like that and is punished with fifty lashes could not have his certificate of naturalisation cancelled. I think the Home Secretary should make a distinction between sentences punishable by hard labour and by flogging and those punishable by simple imprisonment in the second division.
Sir J. BUTCHER: May I ask the Home Secretary in considering this Amendment to bear in mind this point? To my mind one of the most serious offences which any man can commit at this moment is a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, because in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred such a breach is more or less the act of a traitor. I agree that there are some more trivial cases, but when a man comes before a Police Court

1137
under the Defence of the Realm Act and gets six months you may depend upon it he richly deserves it. According to the Bill as it stands, a man brought before a Police Court and given six months' imprisonment does not come within this Clause at all. He can come as often as he likes before the Court for a breach of the Defence of the Realm Regulations, and yet he is not subject to the penalty of possibly losing his certificate. Surely that cannot be right. I hope the Home Secretary will reduce this period of twelve months to six months.
Mr. NEVILLE: I should like to endorse what has been said by the last speaker. We must look at this matter from a common-sense point of view, and it is clear that if you allow an alien, who applies for naturalisation, to be told that if he commits any offence which is going to land him in a sentence of six months he may lose his certificate, it puts a very wholesome fear of consequences in him. He says, "I must be on my good behaviour." I cannot conceive of any provision which would be more likely to put an alien on his good behaviour than this. When you think that a large number of the people who flock into the East-End, and give us more Jews than we get in Jerusalem, and many of them of a very poor character, it seems to me that you ought, as business men desirous of protecting your own people from the contamination of these persons, to let it be clearly known that if they enjoy the hospitality of this country they do it on the terms that if they violate that hospitality and get themselves into trouble for six months they will be liable to have their naturalisation taken away. The argument that perhaps if we were to do this we should be doing something that has not been done before is entirely beside the mark. This is the very opportunity to make a precedent, and to deal with this matter from a good, sound, businesslike point of view. It seems to me to be the best thing to do to preserve the purity of this country, and to preserve also the natural safeguards upon which a State really depends, and I, therefore, hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment.
Mr. D. MASON: I think that twelve months is a very reasonable time to put in a Bill, and I do not see why we should take away a certificate of naturalisation simply because a man is imprisoned for
1138
six months. The same argument as has been used for the Amendment could well be applied to three months, and I should like to hear what the Home Secretary has to say in respect of the period of twelve months, which I think is perfectly reasonable.
Sir G. CAVE: Of course, these matters have been very carefully considered by the Committee, which sat for some time, and looked into the whole of this question, and they took the view that de-naturalisation should only take place when there had been a serious offence showing that the man when he applied for naturalisation was probably a man of bad character. It is difficult, I agree, 10 fix precise period, but on the whole the recommendation made to me, which I have adopted, was that cases of penal servitude and of twelve months' imprisonment might be taken as a cause for denaturalisation. You could have a good argument for nine months, or six months, or for three months, or even one month, but one must follow one's own judgment, and I think twelve months is the right period. I know something of crime, because I have often sentenced for crime, and I know that a twelve months' sentence means a really serious offence, and that is why I have put it in this Bill. I hope the Committee will keep it in the Bill.
Mr. NEVILLE: Will the Home Secretary deal with the point about hard labour?
Sir G. CAVE: I am quite willing to insert it, but I should have thought that twelve months even without hard labour would have been sufficient.
Commander BELLAIRS: The Committee took the view that there should only be denaturalisation when the offence was serious, but is it not the case that the majority of the offences under the Defence of the Realm Regulations are serious offences, but are punished with sentences less than twelve months? If the Home Secretary were to grant a return of these cases I think he would find that the great majority of them were sentences of less than twelve months, and I think that in these cases the persons ought to be denaturalised.
Mr. PETO: I do not think the Home Secretary understood the suggestion with regard to hard labour. It was not meant to make the Clause less stringent.
Sir G. CAVE: I am afraid I cannot put that in.
Sir R. COOPER: Is it correct that in a Police Court no penalty greater than six months can be inflicted? If that is so, does not that justify the Amendment, especially in view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has such a very wide discretionary power?
Colonel YATE: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman if the five years are to be retained in this Clause, and, if so, should not the twelve months be reduced to six? If the five years are not to be retained, then we might allow the twelve months to stand.
Sir G. CAVE: I will look into the matter.
Sir J. BUTCHER: An immense number of very serious cases in which the Defence of the Realm Regulations have been broken come before the Police Court, where the maximum penalty is six months.
Sir G. CAVE: No.
Sir J. BUTCHER: If I am wrong there the point does not arise, but I was under the impression that in the Courts of First Instance—
Sir G. CAVE: I meant that the maximum penalty under the Defence of the Realm Regulations is not six months.
Sir J. BUTCHER: Do I understand that when a man is brought before a Court of First Instance for an alleged offence under the Defence of the Realm Regulations he may get more than six months?
Sir G. CAVE: No; I did not say in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
Sir J. BUTCHER: My whole point was, that the vast majority of the Defence of the Realm Regulation cases come before the Police Courts, and that they are very serious offences, but the utmost sentence there is six months, and will my right hon. Friend say why a man who has been sentenced to six months in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction should be allowed to retain his nationality in all oases, although in some other cases, not nearly so serious from the point of view of loyalty to the country, a man may get a heavier sentence and then be deprived of his nationality?
Sir G. CAVE: The question of loyalty comes under another Clause. My point is that the sentence of six months generally does not indicate a very serious case.
Mr. STEWART: How do we stand as regards the five years? I should like to know, because if the right hon. Gentleman says he will remove that five years period we might not divide on this question; but if that is to be retained I think we must go to a Division on this question of the twelve months.
Sir G. CAVE: I said I will consider the term of five years before the Report stage. If the twelve months is struck out and six months is inserted in its place, I must adhere to the five years, but I have promised to consider that question of the five years period before the Report stage.
Amendment negatived.
8.0 P.M.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move in substituted Clause 7 (2), to leave out paragraph (c), and to insert instead thereof
"(c) by reason of character, action, or mode of living has not shown himself to be a good citizen."
I confess I do not altogether agree with the hon. Member who said the other night that this Bill was directed against the Germans. I do not look at this Bill as being-directed primarily against the Germans. I look upon it as the beginning of a series of measures that are going to make British citizenship something worth having, and that to get it one must have shown himself worthy of it, and having got it, shows himself worthy of keeping it. It is with that idea in my mind, and not with any idea of aiming against our German-enemies particularly, that I have put down one or two Amendments. Taking this particular Amendment, it is not really very apparent to me what this paragraph (c) in the Bill exactly means, because, after all, at the date of the granting of the certificate there was one man, and one man only, who had something to say in the matter, and that was the Home Secretary himself, because if we turn up the principal Act and look at Section 2, Subsection (3) we read—
"The grant of a certificate of naturalisation to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall lie from his decision."
If this man was of bad character when he came before the Home Secretary to get his certificate, why was the certificate given to him? At that particular time this alien, when refused a certificate by the

1141
Home Secretary, could not appeal to any Court, committee or tribunal, and bamboozle them and get round them in some clever way. He simply had to make his application to the Home Secretary, and if the Home Secretary refused, nothing more was to be said. Therefore, I do suggest that, first of all, the Home Secretary is rather condemning himself by putting in this paragraph (c). Of course, it may be that this particular paragraph is aimed against women of a certain class, and men of a certain class who live on them. Of course, if that is the case, no doubt the Home Secretary will tell us so. If it is the case, what we want is to get these people not only denaturalised but deported. Also, I suggest that if we look at the last two lines of Sub-section (2) there are ample powers there to deal with such people without this particular paragraph (c), for there it is said
"and that (in any case) the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good."
That is, of course, a very general provision, and gives the Home Secretary very wide powers; but, at any rate, I do suggest that paragraph (c) as it stands is really not worth keeping in the Bill. If we are going to do something to make it more difficult for a man of bad character to retain his status of British citizen, when once naturalised we ought to put in something much more definite, and it is fox that reason I move my Amendment.
It is perfectly certain that these four years of war have been a time of fiery trial for the alien—I do not care whether the alien is a friendly alien, a neutral alien, or an enemy alien. Some of these aliens have come through that period well; others have not. I do not suppose any one of us will pass a word of reproach on the great Italian colony or the French colony in our midst. We have an opportunity in this Bill, however, to deal with the undesirables. This, I hope, is the first of a series of Acts under which we are not going, as before, to allow any man or woman to come to this country on the very flimsiest excuse without examination of their character, antecedents, and mode of living. I suppose for more than one hundred years we have had this great humanitarian cry that England will afford a right of asylum to persecuted nationalities. That sort of thing has gone far enough. We are not in future going to extend this right of asylum indiscriminately to people who
1142
come to our shores telling us this and that, and settling down, and then lowering the mode of living of great masses of our own citizens by their mode of living and their character. That is one of the most important things we can do under this Bill, and, therefore do let ns now make every effort to do it by putting in appropriate words. After all, we are largely now reaping where we sowed. We let these people in, and now we find them most undesirable. Do let us then take this opportunity of denaturalising where necessary, and deporting where necessary, and not wait for a further measure to be introduced to do this. If we in this Committee do not do it the British citizen outside means to insist that his standard of living shall be kept up and that he shall not be brought down to the mode of living and character of these foreigners who have been dumped on him in these large quantities during the past fifty or sixty years. It is not really a case of whether a man was of bad character, but it is much more a case as to whether a man now is of bad character, or, rather, is he not of good character, and will he be in the future of good character, and likely to make a good citizen in this small and overcrowded island of ours? Therefore, I do suggest that the words put in the Bill by the Home Secretary are of very little use, if of any use at all, and if we are going to have anything in at all, it is much better to put in something definite such as I have moved.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir Gordon Hewart): This Amendment, I fear, is one which cannot be accepted. I am sure the hon. and gallant Member will perceive that it is very vague in its terms. According to this Amendment, the burden of proof is thrown upon the person referred to to show by some act that he is a person who may be called a good citizen. I should think that no such vague and general words are necessary, and that the words at present in paragraph (c), not taken alone, but taken in conjunction with the other provisions of the Clause, are sufficient to deal with that part of the matter.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2, d), after the word "certificate" ["grant of the certificate"], to insert the word "not."

1143
The four Amendments I have down are all connected one with the other. I therefore propose to save the time of the Committee by treating them as being practically one Amendment. If I do that, the effect upon the Bill as it stands will be that paragraph (d) will read,
"has since the date of the grant of the certificate not been ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions."
Of course, that removes a very big umbrella which this paragraph erects, and it also removes, if I may say so, a great deal of red-tape, with which the Home Secretary and the Committee which he is about to set up are bound under this Clause. And I would ask, What is the virtue of a period of seven years? Of course, we all know that a man might have his certificate revoked under some of the other Clauses, but under this particular Clause a man, whose certificate it might be desirable to cancel on the ground that he has been absent from this country for a considerable time, is immune if he has been absent for a shorter period than seven years. I suggest there is no virtue in that whatever, and the whole point is whether this man, who has obtained a certificate of British naturalisation, has ordinarily resided in His Majesty's Dominions or not. If not, then I think there ought to be no cover given to him under this Clause. Then there is the suggestion also that a further special consideration should be given to the representative of a British subject, firm, company, or institution. I submit that that really has nothing whatever to do with the case. If the man is an undesirable alien, who has done something which renders it desirable that his certificate should be cancelled, what difference does it make whether he is or is not the representative of a firm, company, or institution? And even supposing he is in the service of the Crown, if he is what is called a wrong un, why should he be granted this immunity because he is in the service of the Crown? Some people have a suspicion that in the service of the Crown abroad there are a certain number of naturalised men whose services might very well be dispensed with, and whose certificates might very well be revoked. In any case I think that the Clause, subject to my Amendment, would be very much easier to apply, and, what is a more important matter, would be much better understood by the people of this country, who I believe will sympathise very much
1144
with any alteration which would make this an extremely simple and straight-forward measure, and about which there can be no doubt.
Sir G. HEWART: The Amendment which has just been proposed is an Amendment of a far-reaching character, and I am not sure, after listening attentively to the speech in which it has been submitted to the Committee, that my hon. Friend who is responsible for it has entirely appreciated its comprehensiveness. In order to bring that fact out clearly, if I can, may I say a word upon this part of the Bill as it now stands? This part of the Bill will deal with a series of specific and alternative grounds upon which the Secretary of State may revoke the certificate. One of the criteria of possible disqualification is ordinary residence outside His Majesty's Dominions. In the Bill as it stands that possible ground for disqualification is limited in two different ways. In the first place, the person whose certificate is to be revoked upon that mere ground is to be a person who has not been ordinarily resident within His Majesty's Dominions for a certain period, and the period which is chosen is seven years. Secondly, he must be a person who has not been ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions otherwise than as a representative of a British subject, firm, or company carrying on business, or an institution established, in His Majesty's Dominions, or in the service of the Crown, or has not maintained substantial connection with His Majesty's Dominions. In other words, so far as this specific ground of possible disqualification is concerned there is a limit of time on the one hand, and a limit of capacity on the other hand. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend, if I follow it, proposes, taken in conjunction with the other three Amendments which are connected with it, to sweep away at a stroke both these limitations. There is to be no limit of seven years or of any period, and there is to be no possible ground of excuse on the part of the person referred to by reference to the character of his business or the occupation which took him away. In order that one may see the drastic effect this Amendment would have, if accepted, upon the Clause, may I read the particular limb of the Clause as it would stand if the Committee were to be induced to accept this bunch of four Amendments? It would read in this way:

1145
"has since the date of the grant of the certificate not been ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions."
Let me point out—for any period and for any reason. Is it not obvious that that provision goes much too far? To take one instance out of many which occur to one: the effect would be, among other things, that a naturalised British subject would be prevented from being in the employ or in the service of the Crown and from conducting the commercial business of this country outside His Majesty's Dominions. That, I feel sure, is not really desired by the hon. Member, but if in deed and in fact he desires to introduce an alteration of that far-reaching character, I cannot think it will commend itself to this House, and it certainly is one which, on behalf of the Government, I cannot accept.
Mr. BIGLAND: I should like to say a few words with regard to this Amendment. I think what is in my Friend's mind is that in the drafting of this Clause there has been too much emphasis, and especially, to my mind, in the last part of the Clause, where it says "has not maintained substantial connection with His Majesty's Dominions." Every man who has gone abroad would say that he has done this, and on this Clause, therefore, you could not take away the certificates even on the ground that we would all wish to see them removed. What we wish to do is to give power to the Home Secretary to cut off a number of these aliens whom we consider undesirable as British citizens. Surely, if a man, after taking his citizenship, wilfully lives abroad, and can give no good excuse, the Home Secretary should have power to wipe his name off the list of citizens of this country! If a good solid reason, such as that His Majesty employed him abroad, were given, the Home Secretary would continue the certificate. My Friend does not for a moment think that no power should be given to the Home Secretary to exercise his discretion.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: He has the power.
Mr. BIGLAND: I claim that unless we tighten up this Bill as now submitted to us we, and also our countrymen outside this House, will be most grievously disappointed, and it will be said that we have been weak and vacillating and attempting to safeguard these men in every possible way. If my hon. Friend,
1146
in his Amendment, would put in five years I would certainly support him, and I believe a great number of Members of this House would go to a Division to see that, if these men, after they have taken out naturalisation papers, leave the country without good reason, their names should be removed from the list.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I hope the Solicitor-General will give us some assurance that this matter will be considered before Report. The Bill as it now stands opens, a very wide door for a man to cloak himself under British nationality and then go abroad and remain a British citizen. He comes here and says, "I want a certificate," and he becomes naturalised. He says, "My business requires me to go to South America for seven years." He goes, not in the service of the Crown, not for any public interest, but for purely personal and selfish interests. He has no interest in this country's business or otherwise, and just before the seven years is up, when his certificate would be liable to be taken away, he comes back, say, for six months, or even less, and in that way saves his British nationality. Then he can go away for another seven years. There is nothing in the world to prevent him from going for six years eleven months, come home for one month, and then go away for another six years eleven months, and all the time be a British citizen. I think the Clause is too favourable to the alien who carries on his operations in that way, and perhaps the Solicitor-General will consider it with a view to seeing whether he cannot tighten it up before Report.
Mr. PENNEFATHER: The right hon. Gentleman, I think, cannot have done justice to the case I put forward, because he appeared to assume that the Secretary for State and the Judicial Committee about to be set up would not have the power suggested. As a matter of fact the Clause giving these powers, both to the Secretary of State and to the Judicial Committee, is simply permissive. I have more confidence in the Secretary of State and this Committee than to suppose that they will take such action as will lead to the results which the right hon. Gentleman pictured of no naturalised British subject ever being able to travel in any capacity in any part of the world. What would, what might, happen would be that the Secretary of State or the Committee would have sound reasons for

1147
saying, "This man's certificate ought to be cancelled, but it is possibly not so easy to cancel it under A, B or C; it is difficult to get proof, but we have enough knowledge and evidence before us to know that it is desirable to cancel the certificate, and we can cancel it on the ground that this man has not been ordinarily resident in His Majesty's Dominions." It is a convenient ground for cancelling, for good and sufficient reasons, the certificate of naturalisation. May I just say a word about this "substantial connection"? I entirely agree with my hon. and learned Friend that there is no naturalised subject, practically none, who goes abroad for a period of years who does not have some substantial connection with this country. Apart from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and possibly one or two other legal authorities, I do not suppose there is a man in this House at the moment who can say he knows what "substantial connection" means. Frankly, I do not. But what we desire to mean is that any man must prove that during the long period of his absence abroad, during which he has been of no use to this country, and perhaps no good friend to it, that he has had some substantial connection. I am not going to press the Solicitor-General to accept the Amendment to-night, but I am going to ask him whether he cannot see his way to agree that this Clause should be reconsidered between now and the Report stage, with a view either to eliminating the period of years altogether or substituting a shorter period, such as, say, three years, or even five years, as my hon. and learned Friend suggested; with the view also of striking out some of these other provisions which make it so extremely difficult for the Home Secretary or the Committee to act in regard to these men in some cases as they might desire.
Colonel YATE: May I add to the observations of my hon. Friend that I hope the Solicitor-General will agree to the reconsideration of this, especially the term of years, between now and the Report stage, and reconsider it on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend who has just spoken?
Sir G. HEWART: Nothing is easier than to give a promise on behalf of the Home Secretary that this Clause shall be
1148
fully reconsidered between now and the Report stage. It is very easy to give such a promise. My own view, however, is—and I hold it very strongly—that one should give a promise of that kind, not merely for the purpose of conciliating those concerned, but that behind it there should be the intention of a serious endeavour in the interval to remodel the Clause upon the lines proposed. I say frankly that at present I see very great difficulty in so doing. I do not want to repeat what I have said, but we are at a part of the Clause that deals with the specific potential disqualification of non-residence. I agree that the matter is subject to the discretion of the Secretary of State. So is every one of these other grounds. If the matter ended there, it might be enough to say that the Secretary of State might revoke a certificate—
Mr. PENNEFATHER: May I say that that is not the case in this instance, because it is specifically laid down in the Clause that the Secretary of State may revoke the certificate or may refer the matter to the Committee?
Sir G. HEWART: I agree; but the scheme of the Bill, so far as specific possible grounds of disqualification are concerned, is to enumerate certain grounds. What my hon. Friend proposes to do is to make mere non-residence—apart from the reason why, and apart from the time when—a specified possible ground upon which—
Mr. PENNEFATHER: I suggested a change of time—three or five years.
Sir G. HEWART: In my submission that goes much too far. As for the point that it is not easy to understand what "substantial connection" means, I should have thought it meant that the connection must be a real substantial connection; and, again, that the Secretary of State had to determine whether the alleged connection is a substantial connection within the meaning of this Clause. Subject to that caveat, I am quite willing to agree that the matter shall be reconsidered in the sense that it shall not be overlooked. In saying that, I must not in the least be understood to convey that I think it is probable we shall accept the Amendment. I am not really in favour at the present time of the

1149
Amendment. I think it is not wanted, but certainly the matter may be reconsidered.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. C. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), at the end of paragraph (d), to insert,
"(e) was the subject of a State at war against His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status."
This is an Amendment which I hope will be accepted by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, or between now and the Report stage will be earnestly considered by him with a view to its adoption. Only within the last few years has it come home to the great bulk of Members of this House though they may have been reminded in recent years of it, and may have forgotten it—that it is possible for a naturalised British subject to retain his national status in the country of his birth. I am touching upon a subject which goes to the whole root, the whole question of naturalisation. It is not a question of fraud or misrepresentation, because up to now our own law has known of this. I do think, however, we ought to take advantage of this opportunity to introduce what I should regard as an absolutely necessary alteration in our system in regard to naturalisation. It is a question of the bona fides of the whole system. What were the presumptions in the case of a man who applied for naturalisation? The State assumed, or at all events the public assumed, that the man desired to come into a partnership with us in our national life and to enjoy the measure of liberty that we possess. He wants to throw himself heart and soul into the life of our community and to become, so far as it is possible to become by legal act, a citizen of the British Empire, and so we have accepted naturalisation as a system, and it is from that point of view that the system of naturalising possibly dangerous aliens has been recommended to the good sense of the people of this country. Now we find, and some of us have known it for a considerable time, that it is quite possible for an alien, or was possible before the War, because the system is practically in suspense at the present time, to go through a series of transactions on paper, to swear an oath of allegiance to the King, and then to tome into the full inheritance of a natural British subject. In that way civilised States have been willing to grant naturalisation on the ground that they were deal-
1150
ing with a bonâ fide applicant. Some States permit their citizens to take out letters of naturalisation from another country while at the same time they retain the nationality of the country of their birth, and in that case naturalisation is reduced to nonsense.
Reference has been made to the law passed in Germany in the early part of 1914, but that law, as I read it, makes the situation worse than it was. It appears, as I understand the law, and if I am wrong I am sure the Solicitor-General will correct me, to be possible for a German citizen, or it was possible before the War, to go to the competent authority in his own country and say, "I am going to apply for naturalisation in England, but I do not want my naturalisation in Germany to lapse." They say to him in Germany, "Go ahead, it does not make the least difference." I have a much greater respect for the German who allows his German nationality to lapse and take out our letters of naturalisation than for the man who assumes this double role. I think this is a matter of great substance, and I do not anticipate that my right hon. Friend the Solicitor-General or the Under-Secretary of State will waive this Amendment aside in the somewhat light and airy way in which a large number of Amendments have been set aside to-day.
This is a very important Bill, and I am not sure, and I say it with all respect to hon. Members, that this Committee is quite conscious how keenly this measure is being regarded outside. I have sat through the whole of this Debate, and I have seen little to convince me that the Committee is conscious of the anxiety with which this measure is regarded outside this House, and I think we are entitled to receive from the Government in regard to this matter a very full examination and a very satisfactory reply. They may say that this is a question that must come up when the whole system of naturalisation is being considered by the Committee which is about to be appointed. No doubt it must be, but I do impress upon my right hon. Friend the importance of giving effect to a principle which, as I say, cannot be questioned, for if you allow a dual nationality then the whole system of naturalisation becomes a farce. It is, therefore, with great confidence that I submit this Amendment to my right hon. Friend, and I hope it will be accepted.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I agree that this is a most vital Amendment. This question goes to the very root of the whole principle on which naturalisation is founded. A man who owes allegiance to the Kaiser cannot divest himself of that allegiance by signing papers of naturalisation in this country. What is certain about this dual nationality is that a man who owes a dual allegiance cannot be true to both his masters. He may be a traitor to one or the other or to both, but he cannot be true to both, and therefore, whether he is a single or a double traitor we do not want him as a citizen of this country. If he has by inadvertence or by some defect in our law allowed himself to be put, or has deliberately put himself, in the position in which he must be a traitor to one country or the other, I think we should relieve him of that position, and put him back in his orignial position as early as possible.
Think what happens! A German, knowing that he could not by law divest himself of his German nationality, comes to this country and says, "I want to be your citizen. I want to be loyal to you and take your oath of allegiance," knowing all the time that he cannot honestly do it. He is allowed to do it. He signs a paper, which to him is the usual scrap of paper, the oath of allegiance but it means nothing to him. Perhaps he wants some benefit in his business, or perhaps he has some sinister object. He gets his naturalisation and he puts himself in a position in which he cannot be an honest man, and what this Amendment asks him to do is to relieve himself of that position, and allow him to go back to the rule of that Sovereign to whom he professed allegiance, and relieve him from that position in which he is a dishonest man attempting to owe allegiance to two different Sovereigns. This is an absolutely-vital Amendment, and I hope that the Solicitor-General will feel that the time has come to get rid of this grave anomaly in our naturalisation law.
Sir G. HEWART: I do not wish to treat this Amendment or any Amendment to this Bill in a light-hearted manner. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment, and my hon. and learned Friend who supported it, have given weighty reasons why it should be carefully considered, and it certainly deserves careful consideration. It is to be observed that the Amendment in the form in which it has been moved is of much more limited scope than the
1152
Amendment as it was put upon the Paper. As it was put upon the Paper, it was proposed to be made one of the specific grounds of possible disqualification that the person in question was the subject of any enemy State that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing the original citizenship. If I follow it, the words "foreign State" are now to be exchanged for the words "State at war with His Majesty." A slight difficulty arises in the consideration of these words. Do they mean "if he was at any time a subject of a State which was ever at war with His Majesty," or "which was at war with His Majesty at the time when the question comes up for consideration." I rather think, if I rightly interpret the sense of my hon. Friend's speech, and I am fortified by what my hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir J. Butcher) said, that he is speaking of a person who at the crucial date, namely, the date when the matter comes up for consideration, remains the subject of a foreign State then at war with His Majesty, which does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing the original citizenship.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: Yes, that is so.
Sir G. HEWART: If the Amendment had stood in its original form, great difficulties would have arisen into which I need not now enter. But if my hon. Friend will take from me the word "remains" instead of the word "was" I am disposed to accept the Amendment in its altered form. Let me observe, however, that it must not be thought that the Amendment goes so far as upon a hasty view might be suspected. I speak with diffidence on any topic of law, and especially on any topic of German law, but, as I understand the law in Germany, it used to be that it mattered not to the citizenship of a German that he became naturalised elsewhere. Since the passing of the Delbrück law the position, as I understand it, is that any German naturalised elsewhere is deprived of his citizenship in Germany, but in a particular case he may satisfy the authorities in Germany that, notwithstanding naturalisation elsewhere, he ought to remain a German citizen. Interpreting the Amendment in that way, as dealing with the case of persons who remain subjects of a State at war with His Majesty where the law is such that naturalisation within the British Empire does not extinguish the original citizenship

1153
it seems to me that it is an Amendment which may properly and usefully be accepted.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, and I very gladly accept his Amendment. I may explain that I was in great doubt whether I ought to put "was a subject" or "is a subject" or how I ought to describe him, as obviously he is a subject of both States. The word which my right hon. and learned Friend suggests seems to me to meet the case as well as it can be met, and I accept it with gratitude and thank him for accepting the Amendment as a whole.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir F. Banbury): Do I understand the right hon. and learned Gentleman desires to move an Amendment to the Amendment?
Sir G. HEWART: It is a mere matter of form. As I understood it, my hon. Friend behind me accepted from me the suggestion that in his Amendment the word "was" should be exchanged for the word "remains."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Someone must move that Amendment. An Amendment must either be moved or the Amendment now before the House must be withdrawn and another Amendment substituted. I think the simplest way would be to move an Amendment to the Amendment.
Mr. HARMSWORTH: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the word "was," and to insert instead thereof the word "remains."
Question, "That the word 'was' stand part of the proposed Amendment," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That the word 'remains' be there inserted."
Sir R. COOPER: I am extremely glad that the Solicitor-General has accepted this Amendment, to which many people attach enormous importance. It is a very important step which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has taken this evening, because, for the first time, we are establishing in this country that, at any rate with regard to enemy subjects, we are not going to allow a dual nationality. We are even to-day naturalising people who may possibly—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The only question before the Committee is that the word "remains" should be inserted.
Question proposed, "That the proposed words, as amended, be there inserted."
Sir R. COOPER: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman bear in mind the effect of this Amendment and consider whether, before any more naturalisation certificates are granted to people of enemy origin, it is not desirable that the oath of allegiance should be altered accordingly?
Mr. BIGLAND: I should like to express gratification that the Solicitor-General has been able to accept this Amendment. There was in my own Constituency intense feeling when it became known that it was possible that a man when he took the oath of allegiance to our King did not relinquish his allegiance to his own sovereign. Our fellow countrymen abroad are greatly exercised in their minds whether it is right for them to take part in the political life of the country in which they have gone to live when they find that by so doing they must relinquish their British citizenship, and it was a real revelation that any country had passed a law whereby its subjects could accept the citizenship of Great Britain and still retain their own citizenship. There is an old law, which I understand is sound, that when a fraud is proved the contract ceases to exist. It seems to me that the fact that these men have retained their German citizenship proves absolute fraud, and that, therefore, the agreement to accept such persons as citizens of the British Empire can be annulled. I do not know whether that would have stood, but now that the Amendment has been accepted the whole country will be exceedingly pleased to know that this matter, which has created so much feeling, has been set at rest.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: I think the acceptance of this Amendment is quite wise in the application to which it is intended to refer. Apparently, many hon. Members of the Committee have not in mind the fact that there are some countries which in no circumstances relieve their nationals of their citizenship. I think I am right in saying that Russia, for instance, in no circumstances regards any Russian subject who goes to another country as ceasing to be a Russian subject, no matter what he does. It is not the fault of the man

1155
himself who may become naturalised here that he continues to be a Russian subject at the same time. The law of Russia does not permit him to give up his Russian nationality. The law there is that once a Russian subject, always a Russian subject. The effect of the Amendment will be that if, unhappily, at some future time we should be at war with any country in the world whose law is of that character, every ex-national of that country who may be living in this country who has been naturalised could have his naturalisation cancelled at once, provided that the continuance of the certificate was not conducive to the public good. Those words are a, sufficient safeguard against injustice. I make this suggestion to the Government—at any rate, I wish to place it on record for future reference; my words have no application to the present state of things—that it is quite wrong that any country in the world should have such a law as I have described—namely, that their subjects can never divest themselves of the nationality of that country, even if they go to live permanently in another country and become naturalised citizens in the country of their adoption. I think that when normal conditions return, negotiations should be set on foot with any country which still retains that law, with a view to the abrogation of that law and to securing, by the ordinary principles of international comity, that where one country acepts as a citizen one who comes to live within its borders, the country from which he came should, ipso facto, relieve him from allegiance. If that were done, the conceivable evils which might arise—I agree, in the distant future—from this Amendment might be avoided. I wish to place that on record.
Colonel YATE: I spoke on this subject on the Second Reading of the Bill, and only wish to say how pleased I am that the Solicitor-General has accepted this Amendment, and has thus put an end to an anomaly which has existed hitherto.
9.0 P.M.
Mr. D. MASON: I should like to ask the Solicitor-General a question with regard to the interesting point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel). I entirely agree with this Amendment, for I consider that dual nationality is absurd. Do these words enable a man who comes from, say, Russia, Italy, or some other country to be
1156
still held by the Government of that country to be a citizen of that country, because the words are—
"remains a subject of a States—"
it is the State that does it—
"at War with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status."
If you throw the onus upon the foreign State, then the individual alien belonging to some State who might desire to be a British citizen and to take the oath of allegiance, and has every wish to do so, still comes under this ban. I only ask this question to enable us to avoid the position pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland. Will this prevent a man from becoming a British subject merely because his original country still regards him as its subject? That is worthy of the Solicitor-General's attention. It should be made perfectly clear that in accepting this Amendment we are not preventing or accepting many loyal citizens who might desire to become British subjects and to relinquish their former nationality.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: There is one point I should like to clear up. This is a good Amendment, but it is the fact that where this law does exist in a foreign State it is not possible to get rid of the man's allegiance. Under this Amendment he will not be able to refuse to remain a subject of that State. So that if the foreign State with which we are at war maintains the permanent allegiance of any of its subjects, then it is not in the least at the option of any individual citizen of that State to remain its citizen. He must remain a subject of that State, and has no option in the matter at all. As there is some misapprehension on this subject, I would ask the Solicitor-General to clear up the matter. We are dealing with an old state of the law, under which, before various naturalisation laws were passed, a great number of different States maintained the doctrine of the permanent allegiance to their subjects. I think I am right in saying that we did ourselves, until a recent date, and that it was impossible for an Englishman to renounce his allegiance to the State. The State kept its hold upon him. This doctrine of dual nationality is not an old trick invented to get the better of us by States with which we were at war. It is a relic

1157
of ancient doctrine, which we held in common with all civilised countries. That doctrine has been relinquished by different States at different stages. I understand that if a man is a subject of a State where that doctrine obtains, he cannot get away from its chains, and is bound by the doctrine of permanent allegiance. Is not that correct?
Sir G. HEWART: If I rightly apprehend the matter, the answer to my right hon. Friend's question is reasonably clear. Wherever a citizen occupies the dual position that he is at one and the same time a citizen of this and of a foreign country, if the event arises that that foreign country comes to be at war with this country, then the mere fact of his dual citizenship, plus the further fact that the continuance of his certificate is not conducive to the public good, will give sufficient ground for the revocation of his certificate. It applies wherever the case occurs, that the person is at once a British citizen and a citizen of a State which has come to be at war with us. That represents the true dimensions of the Amendment.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), to leave out the words "and that (in any case)" and to insert instead thereof the words "or he is a person in whose case."
Under the Bill as it stands the Home Secretary, before he revokes a certificate of nationalisation, has to be satisfied, in the first instance, that one of the specific grounds mentioned in the earlier paragraphs exists, and, secondly, that the revocation of the certificate will be conducive to the public good. My proposal is that he should be able to revoke the certificate whenever he is satisfied that that revocation is conducive to the public good. In other words, it would give him a wide discretion, and that is what he ought to have. We have attempted to introduce certain additional specific reasons into the Bill, so as to enable him to say in this, that, and the other case the certificate ought to be revoked. But I am afraid our efforts have not been sufficiently successful to enumerate anything like all the cases in which we ought to have power to revoke a certificate, and therefore it appears to me it is very essential that there should be some general Clause giving him a discretion in all cases where it would be to the public good to revoke a certificate.
Sir G. CAVE: My hon. and learned Friend proposes to make this one of the events in which the certificate may be revoked, and at the same time to remove what is a very important part of the Clause, namely, that in every case where a certificate is revoked it shall be found that the person to be denaturalised is a person whose continued naturalisation is not conducive to the public good. That is a vital change in the Clause, and I do not think it is a right one. I think in all these cases the Secretary of State ought to be satisfied that it is conducive to the public good. It is not only that he ought to say a man has double nationality or comes otherwise within this paragraph. He ought also to find that it is desirable that the certificate should be revoked. I think this ought to be a cumulative condition in every case. Apart from that, I do not think it would be right to give a general roving power, whenever the Secretary of State is satisfied that the continuance of the certificate is not conducive to the public good, to revoke it without any fault on the part of the naturalised person and without any indication of danger to the public interest, but merely owing to some arbitrary decision of the Secretary of State. That puts far too wide a power in the hands of a Minister of the Crown to revoke grants deliberately made. It would go far beyond the scope of the Bill, and I hope on consideration my hon. and learned Friend will not press his Amendment.
Sir R. COOPER: May I ask if one is to understand that in none of these cases of double naturalisation will the certificate of naturalisation be revoked unless it can be practically proved that the person concerned has done something or his character is such that the continuance of his certificate is not conducive to the public good?
Sir G. CAVE: That is not so at all. The power given to the Secretary of State is to grant or withhold a certificate according as he considers or does not consider that the grant is conducive to the public good. Those are words which are in the original Act in regard to granting certificates, and you ought to have regard to the same considerations in revoking them. I do not at all say the person must have a bad character or something of that kind, but the Home Secretary

1159
must satisfy his own mind, having regard to the facts proved, that it is a good thing to revoke the certificate.
Amendment negatived.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7, at the end of Subsection (2), to insert the words,
"but the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, before making such order refer the case for such inquiry as is hereinafter specified."
I understand the Home Secretary accepts this Amendment. The words are consequential on the acceptance of an earlier Amendment.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end, to add the words,
"and if the Secretary of State does not so refer the case the person to whom the certificate was granted, unless he is a person to whom the provision of Sub-section (2), paragraph (b), of this Section applies, shall have the-right to have his case referred for such an inquiry."
As the Bill was presented to the Committee there was an inquiry in each particular case. That was compulsory upon the Secretary of State. The Home Secretary in the course of previous discussions has made the inquiry merely optional, and he may act without any inquiry if he thinks fit. I wish by this Amendment to leave him his power of deciding without an inquiry, but if he does not refer the case for an inquiry then, that the person affected should have the right of appeal, except in one case, where Subsection (2, b) applies—that is to say, where a man has been sentenced to imprisonment for a term of not less than twelve months or to a term of penal servitude. I do not think in that particular case, when you are taking action under that particular Sub-section, that it is reasonable to insist that a man should have a right of appeal. But, in the other instance, it is only fair and just that in a case of this kind there should be an inquiry at the option of the person affected. Earlier in the afternoon's proceedings the Home Secretary described this Bill as a penal Statute of a drastic character entailing the heavy penalty of the loss of British citizenship. I do not think it is just to leave in the mere discretion of the Home Secretary the right of applying this penal Statute of a drastic character and to give him the right of imposing the heavy penalty of the loss of British citizenship without giving the person affected the right of appeal. That
1160
was in the Bill as originally drafted, and as passed by this House on Second Beading. There has been this alteration of plan in it; I do not object to that, but I think you ought to leave to the person affected his chance of making this appeal, and I hope very sincerely that the Home Secretary will be willing to accept this. I agree, and we all agree, that we have to protect the State; that is not in dispute. But in the process of this revocation of certificates, in the midst of natural strong feelings which may arise, it is quite easy for injustice to be done which I am sure, in cool, dispassionate moments, the Committee will be very loth to see inflicted. I think there ought to be some chance of men who are exposed to heavy penalties having their case, if they think they have got a good case, heard where it might be they would establish their innocence. Some of these words are very vague. It may be right that they should be wide, and I do not object to this width of language which the Committee has accepted. But I think it is only fair and just that there should be this chance of public inquiry, and it would be far more satisfactory to all the country as a whole. We are told in the Press at the present time, and I think most unjustly told, that His Majesty's Ministers are slack and feeble in their administration of the law. I think in such a case it might be very desirable to have the case fought out in an inquiry. No doubt it would be for the person affected to ask for an appeal, but it would be an inquiry, as I understand, in open Court. On the grounds of justice, and also in order to relieve the Home Secretary of a duty which might at times be very invidious, I would press him strongly to accept this appeal.
Major NEWMAN: I very much hope the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. If the condition is accepted, I candidly tell the Committee that the main object of the Amendment which I moved earlier in the afternoon will be utterly defeated. The main object why I moved the Amendment was that I did not want to give a naturalised alien the chance of starting a lawsuit in every case where the Home Secretary thought his certificate ought to be revoked. I did not want to see a perpetual lawsuit going on, with counsel employed on each side, and, above all, a great deal of delay. It was for that reason that I moved that the words "after such inquiry as is herein-

1161
after specified," which might be necessary in ease there should be a lawsuit, should be omitted, and substituted words which gave the Home Secretary discretion, if he thought fit, to allow a naturalised person to make his appeal and to prove his case if he could. But, if the words of the hon. Member were added, then the idea with which I moved my Amendment is gone, and I hope the Home Secretary will not accept it.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: I was not able to be present at the time of the discussion this afternoon, to which the hon. and gallant Member who has just spoken has referred, as I was engaged in the service of the House on a Committee elsewhere, and I do not quite know what passed. But I very much regret that the Amendment then proposed was made. I supported this Bill on the Second Reading, and strongly, because it contained two principles. One principle was that there ought to be denaturalisation where a person who has had—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am afraid we cannot discuss an Amendment which has already been dealt with.
Mr. SAMUEL: No, I am discussing the Amendment now before us, as I think I shall, after a moment, quite clearly show. There were two principles in the Bill, one of which would be to a considerable extent restored if the Amendment to the Amendment now before the Committee were adopted. One was that a person should be denaturalised if he had, by action of his own, proved false to the obligation which he undertook when he became a citizen of this country. The other was that this should be done, not lightly by the fiat of any Minister, but after a judicial or quasi-judicial inquiry in each case. A naturalisation certificate is a very solemn contract between the State on the one hand and the admitted citizen on the other, and both undertake an obligation. It is an extremely invidious duty, as the hon. Member for Lincoln said, to throw upon any citizen the duty of judging in cases of this sort without the assistance of an inquiry by some impartial persons. The Minister is very often hard pressed with business, and it is very difficult for him to ascertain all the facts of an individual case, and he ought properly to refer these matters for such an examination as is now given by the Committee deal-
1162
ing with the internment of aliens, over which Mr. Justice Sankey presides. In a moment of popular passion the position of the Minister may be exceptionally difficult. The Amendment we inserted just now would have this effect. If we were to be at war with Russia, unhappily, in the future, every naturalised Russian in this country, and there are tens of thousands of them, might have his certificate of naturalisation cancelled at once if the Minister held that such action was conducive to public interest. There might be a strong popular agitation to secure that result—an agitation stirred up by a short-sighted Press anxious to support some sensational cause and to attract public attention to it. It might bring most severe pressure to bring on the Minister of the day to cancel all such naturalisation, and if the Bill remained as it is now the Home Secretary might reply, "I am prepared to make an investigation into each case." But he would be met with the rejoinder that Parliament, in 1918, left it entirely to his discretion, and he could at once, if he chose, take away the certificates of all these thousands of people. The Home Secretary would, indeed, have no defence against such a claim. The Amendment of my right hon. Friend says that in such a case the man affected should have the right to appeal to an inquiry which the Government, in their Bill as originally drafted, proposed should take place in each case. That seems to be the right thing, and if the House has decided otherwise, if it has decided there should not be an inquiry and that the Home Secretary should take action in the first instance, then in my opinion, the person aggrived should have the right of recourse to a quasi-judicial tribunal, and the Home Secretary should not be left to face without any protection an agitation such as that I have described.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not regret the decision of the Committee this afternoon, because I think there are cases where inquiry would be useless and absurd, such, for instance, as cases where there had been actual conviction for crime. In these cases I think it would be quite right to dispense with an inquiry. Then there is the case of long absence abroad. As the House will conjecture I have a waiting list of persons who may be dealt with under this Bill, and this list contains a large number of names of persons who are naturalised in this country but who have never shown their faces here for a good

1163
many years past. In such cases it would be practically impossible to give notice of inquiry to the persons affected, and I would in those cases make the inquiry optional. In other cases I agree there is fair reason for giving the person affected the right to ask for an inquiry. These cases would be cases of overt act or speech disloyal to the State, cases of trading with the enemy, and cases of double nationality. I quite feel that in these cases the Home Secretary would not care to decide without giving the persons concerned a chance of a hearing. What I suggest is this. I am very loth to accept the Amendment for this reason, that there is no limit of time within which the inquiry may be demanded, and it might, therefore, postpone the whole matter for months. The form of the Amendment therefore requires consideration, as well as the cases to which it should apply, and I should like to postpone actually dealing with this matter until the Report stage of the Bill.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I am very much indebted to the Home Secretary for the promise he has given to bring up some Amendment in a different form on the Report stage. I may say in my turn he has convinced me that in reference to the cases of long absent from the country, although there might be matter for argument as to the meaning of maintaining substantial connections. I agree that in cases of dual nationality there ought to be a right of appeal. I wish to thank the right hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has met me, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Proposed words there inserted.
Mr. WATT: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3) to leave out the words "a Committee" ["shall be held by a Committee"], and to insert instead thereof the word "Committees."
My object is to bring in the Committee which exists at the present time for Scotland. I imagine that under this measure Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee will deal with the English cases, and we desire that the Scottish Committee should continue to sit for Scottish cases. The right hon. Gentleman knows that that Committee presided over by a judge of high judicial experience and including two Members of
1164
this House has been dealing with Scottish cases, and we desire that some similar Committee should continue to exist for Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman, in moving the Second Reading of the Bill, rather indicated that the Committee would travel about the country. Its labours would therefore be very considerable, and as we do not wish the interests of our country to be neglected in any way I trust the Government will see their way to accept this Amendment. I brought the matter up on the Second Reading in the absence of the Home Secretary, but the Under-Secretary who was in charge promised to look into it and to give us the views of the Home Office when the Bill reached Committee.
Sir G. CAVE: In any case the Amendment in this form cannot be accepted because, of course, the inquiry must be held by a Committee, and you cannot have the same inquiry held by more than one Committee. It is not our intention that the powers conferred under this Bill shall be exercised by Mr. Justice Sankey's Committee or by the, corresponding Scottish Committee, whose duty it has been to deal with the exemption of aliens. It is proposed to set up a new Committee to act under this Bill. There will be, at all events, a Committee newly set up under Statute for the purpose of this Act. Whether that purpose would require one Committee or two, I do not know. This is an Imperial matter. It may be that one Committee for the whole of the United Kingdom is sufficient, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the desire of Scotland to be represented on such a Committee would not be lost sight of. There would be a Scottish representative on the Central Committee for the whole United Kingdom, or if we do divide the matter up no doubt there would be a separate Committee for Scotland, constituted in accordance with the desires of Scotland; so that one way or the other the object of the Amendment will be achieved.
Mr. WATT: I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir R. COOPER: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3), after the word "office," to insert the words,
"one member of this Committee shall be a representative of the British Overseas Dominions."
This Bill is not a national Bill but an Imperial Bill. It concerns the whole

1165
Empire, including the Crown Colonies. The British Dominions are referred to no fewer than seven times in the Bill. This Bill has been held back for a considerable time while His Majesty's Government took counsel with the Governments of the Overseas Dominions in order that they might pass through the House a Bill that would satisfy these Governments. That only shows how exceedingly important it is that the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act should be safeguarded, go that the interests of our Overseas Dominions shall be fully looked after at every turn. While I can quite understand the Home Secretary pointing out the objection that only one representative is proposed when there are several Dominions to be considered as well as the Crown Colonies, I do feel that our Dominions, especially at the present time while we are at war, are sufficiently united one with another as well as with us to look broadly at this matter and feel satisfaction at any suitable arrangement which His Majesty's Government at home might think proper for carrying out this Bill. It is a very important matter, and I hope that in this form, or in some other form, the interests of the Dominions may be regularly safeguarded in the administration of the Bill.
Sir G. CAVE: It is quite clear that this Amendment will not read. Apart from that, as the hon. Gentleman no doubt knows, the question is somewhat complicated. My view is that in order that this Bill should affect citizenship in the Dominions, it must be adopted by the Dominions. Therefore, we do not know that denaturalisation will affect the Dominions at all. If it does, then, no doubt, the Dominions, if they desire to act upon the denaturalisation, will make proper provision.
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: This Amendment does not read, and therefore it is not in order.
Sir R. COOPER: Will it not read with a subsequent alteration in the words, so that the concluding part will read "and the Committee shall be conducted in such manner as the Secretary of State may direct."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: We cannot make any alteration in the Clause before the alteration that was made in the last Amendment.
Sir R. COOPER: The alteration could be made after the word "and," which comes after my Amendment. But I may dismiss the matter by saying that I understand from the Home Secretary that my Amendment should not be adopted because of the considerations to which he has referred, and I therefore ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. D. MASON: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3), after the word "direct," to insert the words,
"Provided that the holder of a naturalisation certificate shall have the right of appeal against the decision of any such inquiry to the High Court for consideration and report."
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not sure whether the undertaking given by the Home Secretary on the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Lincoln (Mr. C. Roberts) does not cover this.
Mr. MASON: I would be very glad to have that assurance from the Home Secretary. I understand that he accepts this as part of the other.
Sir G. CAVE Sir G. CAVE dissented.
Mr. MASON: Then I had better move the Amendment. It seems to me that as the Secretary of State may, if he thinks fit, refer an inquiry to the High Court, the holder of a naturalisation certificate should equally have the right of appeal to the High Court against any decision that might be come to by this Committee. That does not in any sense reflect upon the Committee, which, I have no doubt, will be a judicial one commanding confidence and respect in all quarters. But it is the procedure of our Courts to allow appeals. We have appeals with regard to military service, we have appeals at common law to the next higher Court, and if we have to regard this measure as permanent we are very anxious to get this point settled. It is possible that you might have a miscarriage, and there might be, in times of passion or prejudice, a case in which a false decision was arrived at by the Committee, against which there should be an appeal. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to this, because it gives the holder of the naturalisation certificate the same rights, not greater rights, as the right hon. Gentleman has in the Bill, namely, the right of appeal to the Higher Court.
Mr. HOLT: It seems to me that this is a very necessary proposal, and one which should be supported by the Committee, unless the Secretary of State gives some explanation as to the character of the Committee he may appoint. There is nothing in this Bill to prevent a Committee being appointed for every particular inquiry. An ad hoc Committee might be appointed in every case. It would be possible for the Home Secretary, under the influence of popular excitement, to appoint a Committee almost entirely of such persons as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, the hon. and learned Member for York, the hon. Member for Brentford, or the hon. Member for Horsham, to make inquiry. I do not say that the right hon. Gentleman would appoint such a Committee, but I do say that it could be done, and what chance of justice would there be if such a Committee were appointed? There would be the greatest chance of a miscarriage of justice. If there is to be an inquiry, we are entitled to have a Committee which will conduct it judicially, and that there shall be a guarantee that it shall consist of persons accustomed to exercise judicial functions. I think the hon. Member for Coventry has rendered a considerable service to the Committee by bringing this Amendment forward.
Sir G. CAVE: The scheme of the Bill is that denaturalisation shall be by the administrative action of the Secretary of State, who will be advised by a Committee presided over by a person having judicial experience. Or, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, he can refer the case for full inquiry by the Court, which, in that event, would take the place of the Committee. But, throughout, the act is the act of the Secretary of State, and not of the Committee. I do not think it would be right to give in every case the right of appeal to the person affected. I think that, in ninety-nine cases out of 100, the inquiry by a body such as I propose to set up would certainly do justice. The appointment of a Committee such as the hon. Gentleman opposite suggested is safeguarded against, and, after all, the question remains with the Secretary of State, who would act as he thought fit on the facts. I do not think I can agree to a universal appeal.
Mr. MASON: Can the right hon. Gentleman agree to a partial appeal?
Sir G. CAVE: I cannot consider a general appeal, but I think an inquiry ought to be held in cases where the Secretary of State thinks it necessary. The Amendment now suggested has been tried in France, where originally denaturalisation was referred to the Courts. After a time that was repealed, and the system which now obtains in France is very much nearer to that which we propose to have.
Mr. SHERWELL: I think the question would have been much simpler if the Home Secretary had been able to give us some sort of indication of how the Committee is to be constituted.
Sir G. CAVE: I am sorry I did not refer to that. I never contemplated the appointment of an ad hoc Committee, as suggested by an hon. Member, but what I have in mind is the setting up of a Committee which will be presided over by a judge. I cannot give any names, nor have I even considered the names, because there is no right to appoint a Committee until the Bill is passed.
Mr. SHERWELL: I would like the right hon. Gentleman to be aware, or made aware, of the feeling of misgiving and disquietude in the minds of some because of past experience of the constitution of so many of these Committees. Personally, I sincerely hope that no representative of Parliament would be a member of that Committee, because such a selection would not be a very happy one. It is very difficult, with all kinds of pressure being brought to bear upon the Government of the day, to secure nominations really representative of the House of Commons, and unless the nominees of the Government, as representatives of the House of Commons and the Committee, are really representative and chosen on their merits, the system of including Members of the House of Commons is a vice instead of a virtue. I only express my own personal opinion in suggesting to the Home Secretary that the right hon. Gentleman would be well advised to exclude all Members of Parliament from membership of the Committee.
Mr. HOLT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this matter at a later stage, with a view to inserting some words in the Bill which will show the character of the Committee in a much more conclusive way than is done at present? I really think we should have, not an ad hoc Committee, but a Committee established for

1169
this purpose, and which will not be capable of being altered. That is very important. Surely the right hon. Gentleman can introduce some words at a later stage to make sure of this.
Mr. MASON: The suggestion of the hon. Gentleman opposite is a most valuable one, and, in view of what the Home Secretary has said, if he will undertake to carry out the suggestion of the hon. Member that a Court will be constituted on that basis, I will not press my Amendment. We have to remember that this Bill will remain after the War, and the body which is established should command the confidence of the country. If the right hon. Gentleman will put words in the Bill making sure that we will have such a Court, I shall have great pleasure in withdrawing my Amendment.
Sir G. CAVE: Words are in the Bill which require the Committee to be presided over by a person, appointed by the Secretary of State with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, who holds or has held high judicial office.
Amendment negatived.
Amendments made: In substituted Clause 7 (3), leave out the words "referred to," and insert instead thereof the words "held by."
Leave out the words "for consideration and report."
Leave out the words "of any inquiry so referred," and insert instead thereof the words "on any inquiry so held."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Colonel YATE: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7A (1), to leave out the words "the Secretary of State may by order direct that."
When we were speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill I said that I thought this Clause had been drafted the wrong way on, and the effect of the Amendments that I wish to move would be that the Clause would read:
"Where a certificate of naturalisation is revoked the wife and minor children (or any of them) of the person whose certificate is revoked shall cease to be British subjects, and any such person shall thereupon become an alien."
That is, if a German is married to a German whose certificate of naturalisation is revoked, his wife goes with him; but the alteration I wish to make is to the effect that where the Secretary of State so directs, the nationality of the wife and
1170
minor children of the person whose certificate is revoked shall not be affected by the revocation, and they shall remain British subjects. If an alien is married to an English woman, and the Secretary of State so directs, she can retain her British nationality. It appears to me that that is the natural way to put it, and why the Clause was put in the opposite way I cannot tell. It is drawn, I presume, by a lawyer, and I cannot pretend to get at the back of the lawyer's mind, but it seems to me that the natural and proper way to put the Clause is as I have put it.
10.0 P.M.
Sir G. CAVE: It does not make a great difference, because in either case the Secretary of State would have to direct either that the wife shall or shall not follow her husband's nationality; but, on the whole, I think the scheme of the Bill is the better one.
Colonel YATE: Is it not natural that if the wife is an alien she would go with her husband?
Sir G. CAVE: That is a big question. Amendment negatived.
Sir W. DICKINSON: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7A (1), after the word "wife" ["may by order direct that the wife"], to insert the words "if she is not a natural-born British subject."
I raised this question on the Second Reading, and said that I hoped to move certain Amendments dealing with the whole question of the status of the married woman, especially the British woman married to an alien. This is quite a different subject from what we have been discussing all day. We have been discussing the question of how we shall treat Germans or other aliens whose nationality we wish to revoke; but the Committee now has before it, not the German at all, but the British-born woman, and I hope I may appeal successfully to the Home Secretary to give sympathetic consideration to the extremely urgent case and the strong demands that have been made on this House on behalf of the unfortunate women who have in past years married Germans or foreign subjects, and who have suffered immensely by the law, which compels them to become of the same nationality as their husbands. I need not detain the Committee for very long with any general comments upon

1171
this particular position, as I feel sure that most hon. Members have realised by now the position in which those women have been put. But perhaps I might be allowed, in order to show what the position is, to quote a letter out of many that I have received since I raised this question in the House. It is from one of these women, and she says:
"As one of them, I can assure you that they feel very strongly the injustice of being robbed of their nationality merely because they have contracted marriage with an alien. I have been separated from my husband, a German, who was interned nearly four years ago. He has got nearly all my money in Germany and is trying to starve me into submitting to do what he wishes me, namely, to go to Germany, a thing I will never do. As the law stands, I can neither divorce my husband nor yet appeal to my own country for protection, or for my money. Equally I cannot apply to Germany, as I am dead against it. I am stranded. I cannot even find suitable work to do, though well qualified in one or two lines, as the question of nationality stands like a spectre at every turn, beating me back to helplessness."
It is quite a chance that that letter was sent to me, and I received it yesterday. I have received many letters of the same kind, and I am sure the Committee will realise that we are bound to try and make things better if we can in this Bill for this class of woman, and certainly not to make things worse. In this particular Amendment on this particular Section the Government propose to make the position of a woman who is married to an alien worse than it was before. The Section gives power to the Secretary of State to exercise his discretion, and I have no doubt he contemplates being very generous when he is dealing with the case of the wife of an alien who has become a British subject when she herself is British-born. At the same time, he is taking away a right from that woman that she at present possesses. The proposal is that if it is necessary to denaturalise a naturalised alien, then his wife and children must be denaturalised also. That is to say, if you have a case in which a German has come over to this country years ago, has become naturalised and then married an English woman, though that English woman has never ceased to be a British subject and her children are British subjects, you nevertheless propose to pass a law to say, because of some act—some wrongful act we will say—of the husband, which justifies the Home Secretary in directing him to return to his German nationality, you authorise the Home Secretary to say
1172
that the woman, who has never ceased to be a British subject, is to be converted into a German. That is the proposition which is before the Committee at the present moment.
This question was discussed in 1914, when the new British Nationality Act came into operation, and on that occasion, although we did not succeed in doing all we wanted to do to remedy this injustice to the married woman, as I think it, we did succeed in doing this. We got the proviso, which says:
"Provided that where a man ceases during the continuance of his marriage to be a British subject, it shall be lawful for his wife to make a declaration that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to remain a British subject."
If that law stands unaltered, then when the Home Secretary exercises his discretion under this Bill, and denaturalises this naturalised alien, the wife, whatever her nationality may have been, has a right to say, "I prefer to remain a British citizen." That is a right which the women outside feel very strongly about, which was granted to them after a great deal of struggle in 1914, and which, I submit, ought not to be taken away from them. Of course the answer of the Home Secretary, I have no doubt, will be this, that if you have a naturalised German who has become a British citizen and he has a wife who has also become a British citizen, it would not be safe perhaps under the existing circumstances to allow that wife to claim to retain her British citizenship. I quite admit there is something in that answer, and, therefore, the Amendment I put down excludes that, and I am saying that the rights given in 1914 to the British-born woman shall not be taken away from her. I differ from a good many of the women who have taken an interest in this subject who have said you have in the 1914 Act given a right to the wife of any person who has changed his nationality to say, "I prefer to remain a British subject." I am prepared, under the circumstances of war, to admit that there might be a reasonable case made out for insisting that a woman of German birth should follow her husband of German birth if, by his action, the Home Secretary thinks it necessary to deprive him of British citizenship. But I do ask the Home Secretary not to withdraw from the British-born woman, who has never lost her rights, the protection of the British Government, and her right as a British subject to say, "If you

1173
denaturalise my husband, I, at any rate, will insist on the right you gave me in 1914 to remain a British subject." I hope, under these circumstances, the Home Secretary will consider this matter sympathetically and support me in the Amendment I have put down.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I should like to support the appeal made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras. He has put the case with great fulness, and I only want to reinforce one or two points. I should very much prefer that the Home Secretary would make a clean job of this matter and deal with it on the lines of an Amendment which I have on the Paper.
Sir G. CAVE: I am going to deal with it on those lines.
Mr. ROBERTS: If I only knew the inside of the Home Secretary's mind I would very willingly sit down.
Sir G. CAVE: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman unless he does sit down. I am very much in sympathy with what my right hon. Friend has said. I understand he agrees with me that if a man, say, a German, is denaturalised, and his wife is a German, there ought to be power to compel her to follow her husband in his nationality. On the other hand, if she is a British-born woman I am most unwilling to make her, against her will, a German. The difficulty is this: A wife may have so fully identified herself with her husband in nationality, in character and in conduct that she ought to follow his nationality. That is, she may have brought herself within the very conditions which enable the Secretary of State to cause her husband to be denaturalised. In that case I think the Secretary of State ought to have the power to deal with her at the same time. Therefore, what I propose to do is to combine the two Amendments which have been mentioned, that is, not to take this Amendment, which would absolutely prevent the Secretary of State from denaturalising a British-born wife, but to insert words upon the lines of the later Amendment applied to natural-born British wives. The Amendment I have to propose is at the end of the Sub-section, to insert this proviso:
"Provided that the Secretary of State shall not make any such Order in the case of a wife who is a natural-born British subject, unless he is satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalisation in her own right the certificate would properly have been revoked under the Statute."
1174
Those words may be, perhaps, more effective than the proviso on the Paper, and give effect to the principle, at all events, of the right hon. Gentleman.
Sir C. CORY: I understand by "a natural-born British subject" that a woman of alien parents born in this country would be a natural-born British subject. I have every sympathy for the woman who is born in this country of British parents, but I have not the same sympathy for the woman born of alien parents in this country. There are some very hard cases of British-born women of British parents who have been denaturalised owing to the law as it is. I move as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words "natural-born British subject," and to insert instead thereof the words "the daughter of British parents." That, so far as I can gather, commends itself to most quarters of the Committee. I think it is very dangerous, perhaps, to admit women of alien parents, although born in this country.
Mr. T. WILSON: I am not certain what the effect of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment will be. I do not think the proposal of the Home Secretary goes quite far enough. It seems to me that he ought to take more power to make the position of a British-born wife of an alien enemy more clear. Unfortunately for the morals of the country, we have a number of British-born women who are the mistresses of alien enemies. This proposed Amendment will give these women the protection of the law to call themselves English women, whilst an English woman, becoming the honourable wife of an alien enemy, is going to be deprived of her citizenship. I would like the right hon. Gentleman to make the position quite clear. What I mean is that if an English woman has married a German, as many of them have, and even if the husband is denaturalised, she should retain her position as a British subject. I have met quite a number of women who, unfortunately perhaps for themselves, have married Germans or enemy aliens, and they have not the least sympathy with their husbands, whom they would get rid of altogether if they possibly could. These loyal women ought to have the protection of the law, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be prepared to make an Amendment on the lines I suggest and make it clear that a

1175
woman of English parentage is not going to be excluded from her position as a British subject by this Act. If he cannot make that clear now, I hope he will consider some Amendment to do so between now and the Report stage. The great majority of women who have married alien enemies have no sympathy with them. Nor have I. We must remember that not only are the women who have married Germans affected; their families are indirectly affected as well. For the honour of our young womenfolk, the Home Secretary should make it clear that they will not cease to be British subjects because they have married alien enemies.
Sir W. DICKINSON: As the Amendment is my Amendment, may I point out to the Committee the extraordinary innovation in the law. I do not see how you are going to differentiate the particular kind of British subject. A British subject is known now to be any person born anywhere in the British Empire. It would be extremely unwise to try to distinguish a different kind of British subject unknown to the law at the present time, namely, a British subject who, although born in the British Empire, is of foreign parents.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
Mr. HOLT: Now that we are on the original Question again, may I say I have very little sympathy with the aspect of the case put forward by some hon. Members, or with the motive which underlies their advocacy of this proposal? It appears to me to be fundamentally ignorant of what are the real objects of marriage. I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who seems to think that it is most unfortunate that a woman should have married a foreigner. Are we really to understand, then, that a woman who marries a foreigner is to be considered an outlaw? I suppose when she marries him that the matter is one of mutual satisfaction! Then the Home Secretary talks about the woman who may have identified herself with her husband. Does he suggest—I do not for a moment suppose he does—that that is a wrong thing to do? I should imagine that an English woman who married a German would naturally identify herself
1176
with things German. Otherwise, I do not understand why she married at all. It may, of course, be an extremely foolish thing to do, but what I do know is that when an Englishman marries a foreign wife he certainly expects her to identify herself with his interests. The hon. Gentleman for Westhoughton says he has no sympathy with women who have married foreigners. I think he said that. But what were the hon. Gentleman's exact words?
Mr. T. WILSON: I am sorry the hon. Gentleman's memory is so bad.
Mr. HOLT: I put the words down at the time, but I cannot quite make them out. The hon. Gentleman said he had no sympathy with the man. I cannot, however, imagine a more ridiculous proposal than that if the husband is declared to be a German, and under the provisions of this Bill expelled from this country and compelled to go into Germany, that the woman is to stay here; for then you will have struck at the foundation of marriage. If you are going to intern the husband and declare the wife to be of a different nationality, then you ought to divorce the two, and terminate the marriage altogether. What you want in a case of that kind, then, for the woman is not the change of nationality, but a change of husband. The whole thing is really ridiculous. The woman must follow the nationality of her husband, and so must the children. They must stand or fall together. The affection of the family in that sense cannot be nationalised. Are you prepared to say that the husband, being declared of one nationality, must be deported from here to Germany, say, and the woman, being of another nationality, must be deported to another place, and the children—Heaven knows where? Let us face this problem properly. If the husband has behaved so badly that he ought to be turned out of the country, then the wife ought to have a divorce. If the husband is a bad citizen and a bad fellow, and you expel him to Germany, while the wife has to stay in England, the arrangement is absurd, and I am very sorry the Home Secretary has given any countenance to the proposal.
Mr. ANEURIN WILLIAMS: It seems to me that the argument which we have just listened to is no answer to my right hon. Friend opposite. It may be true

1177
that it should be a ground for divorce when a man has been convicted of disloyalty in this country, but until that change is made it is surely no argument to say that an English-born woman, because you do not give her the divorce, is to be turned into an alien and made to follow the status of the man, with whom she may have quarrelled and separated from. I think the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken has overlooked the fact that the woman is not to be denaturalised for having sympathised with her husband in any of the ordinary things of life, but for any disloyalty to His Majesty, causing him to be imprisoned, or having been seven years out of the country. Therefore, the idea that a woman is bound to sympathise with the husband in all things does not apply to crimes of this sort. I support the Amendment before the House that women should be recognised as British subjects in this very unfortunate position, and ought to be allowed the right to say that they will remain British subjects, unless some act of disloyalty has been proved against them individually.
Mr. WILSON: I am not quite sure whether the rather ingenuous arguments of the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) have any weight with the Committee, but I would suggest to the hon. Member that he has placed himself in a very difficult position. We have to-day not one but hundreds of English women who have married alien enemies, some of them naturalised and some of them not. The alien enemy and the English woman have had children, and many of them are fighting with the British Army. The hon. Member says not only is the father of these children to be denaturalised, and deported or interned, but also the mother of those boys shall be denaturalised and deported, because she has married a German or an Austrian or some other alien enemy. I would like to point out to the hon. Member that a woman marries a man not because he is a German or an Austrian, but because he is a man, and I am very much inclined to think that the English woman who eight years ago married a German or an Austrian never for a single moment thought that we should be at war, and therefore I think his argument is a little far-fetched and will not bear examination.
As a rule, I have every respect for my hon. Friend's arguments, but in this case I think he has overstepped the bounds of truth, if I may say so. That being so, I
1178
think the Committee are justified in asking that a woman of English parents shall be protected in this instance. I am satisfied that the stronger the position of these women is made by the Home Secretary the more it will be appreciated by the English people, and we have no sympathy whatever with naturalised or denaturalised alien enemies. We do say that those women who innocently allied themselves in marriage to these people ought to be protected, because I am satisfied that in 99 per cent. of the cases the women are absolutely and honestly with this country in the War, and what is more, the offspring of many of these marriages are helping the Allies in the struggle in which we are engaged.
Mr. ANDERSON: I would like to ask the Homo Secretary what is the position and what the effect of this Amendment will be. I gather that he realises as fully as any Member the injustice of converting a woman, who has always been a British subject and who has done nothing wrong, into a German subject because her husband has done something wrong. I would like to know exactly what will happen if the Amendment is carried in the form in which it is proposed. I take it that a natural-born British woman, if she has done nothing wrong, will retain her British nationality even though her husband's naturalisation certificate is revoked. It is only if some charge can be brought against her showing that she has acted in some disloyal way that any action will be taken.
Sir G. CAVE: That is exactly the meaning.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: Of course, it does mean that the Home Secretary recognises the grievance and real injustice so far as the British-born woman is concerned, but it equally remains that he has not met the whole case. You may have the case of a foreign-born wife who is not a German. The husband loses his certificate, and thereupon the wife comes under what the Home Secretary described as the heavy penalties of a penal Statute, not for any offence of her own, but for some offence committed by her husband. That is clearly unjust. The Home Secretary is willing to redress the injustice if the wife can show that she is a British-born subject. He only does justice to the British-born wife. He will do an injustice on the condition that the wife is a foreigner.
Sir G. CAVE Sir G. CAVE indicated dissent.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: I think it is exactly the case. If the right hon. Gentleman would deal with both the British-born wife and the foreign-born wife on the lines of my Amendment, he would remove the double injustice which exists. He has removed one injustice, and I thank him for that. I am always glad to get anything that I can, but I still think that it is not a satisfactory position that we should make the doing of justice depend upon the accident of birth.
Mr. STEWART: Marriage does not always end with the two people who contract it. What will be the position of minor children under the right hon. Gentleman's words? If the woman retains her British nationality, will the children be considered to be British subjects, or will they follow the nationality of their father?
Sir W. DICKINSON: I rise to withdraw my Amendment, as I understand that the Home Secretary asks me to do so in order to move his Amendment. I am not satisfied about it myself, but it is something to have got what he has given us. Therefore I accept it. I would point out, however, that it is not bare justice to the women, and, sooner or later, I believe we shall get to a point where you will treat women on an exact equality with men and allow a British-born woman to retain her nationality in all circumstances.
Mr. MORRELL: I am sorry that the Home Secretary, who has hitherto been so fair in this matter, cannot do fairness to these women by providing that they shall not suffer vicarious punishment, as they now do under this Bill. Put yourself in the position of an American who has settled in this country, and then imagine that the American subject is deprived some time hence of his naturalisation certificate, long after the whole family has become practically English. Would it he just that the woman, because her husband, through committing some offence, is deprived of his naturalisation certificate, although she may have lived an unblemished life and is perfectly English in every way, should also lose her English nationality and be compelled, against her will and for nothing she has done, to follow the nationality of her husband and go back to America? That is contrary to all the traditions of English justice. By all means, if there is an offence committed by the woman, deprive her of the privileges she has enjoyed, but do not deprive a woman who has conducted
1180
herself well of the privileges she has hitherto enjoyed in this country simply because you are not satisfied that her husband also has behaved properly. It is nothing else than vicarious punishment.
Sir R. NEWMAN: I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not accepted this Amendment. As it is such a vital question to the woman whom he proposes to deprive of her nationality, he should allow the right of appeal to the High Court of Justice before the Order is allowed to come into force. I feel very strongly on this point. There is hardly a member of the Committee who would not feel that to be turned from an English subject into a German subject would be little short of the death penalty itself. I do not know what penalty I would not rather undergo than to be told that to-morrow I should become a German subject. We allow in almost petty cases an appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal. We do that in cases involving only a small amount of imprisonment. The Home Secretary has such enormous powers. He can say to a woman who has been born a British subject and who has always been a British subject, "Now you must become a German," and she may be sent over to Germany, whether she likes it or not. In those circumstances she ought to have the right of appeal to the High Court. If the present Home Secretary were always the Home Secretary it would be another question, but when with a stroke of the pen it is open to the Home Secretary to impose these terrible penalties upon any British subject, there ought to be the greatest safeguards. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) said that there were foolish virgins who married Germans. Some of us have made a similar mistake. We have trusted Germans in the past, perhaps more than we ought to have done. We can remember the time when we were giving Heligoland to the Germans and when we were fighting under the command of a German at the time of the Boxer rising. We did not always know the Germans so well as we know them now. Therefore, if a British-born woman married a German who was then, perhaps, a naturalised British subject, she did something which was acknowledged by the law, and she ought not to be deprived of her nationality. At any rate, before that is done, she ought to have the right of appeal.
Amendment negatived.
Sir G. CAVE: I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7A, at the end of Subsection (1), to add the words,
"Provided that the Secretary of State shall not make any such Order as aforesaid in the case of a wife who is a natural-born British subject unless he is satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalisation in her own right the certificate would properly be revoked under this Act."
I think this entirely meets the point of my hon. Friend below the Gangway.
Mr. H. SAMUEL: The Home Secretary has found a happy solution of an extremely difficult problem. My hon. Friend (Mr. Holt) has omitted one consideration, He said a wife should follow her husband's interests, and should accept the nationality which her marriage brings with it. In this case it is the other way about. It is the husband who has already accepted the wife's nationality. It is the husband who has become naturalised, and it may be she has only married him on that condition. It would be very hard, indeed, if he, through some fault of his own, has gained denaturalisation, that she should be swept out of the British citizenship into which she was born. My hon. Friend (Mr. Roberts) said it would be very hard that a French or American woman married to a German should be deprived of British nationality because of some fault committed by her German husband. That does not follow as a necessary consequence at all. It is within the power of the Home Secretary either to direct or not to direct, in such a case, that she has lost her nationality, and he would no doubt take all the circumstances of the particular case into account. It is necessary, I think, to reserve some power in exceptional cases to denaturalise even a British-born woman, because some of them become very German, sometimes even more German than their husbands. I have known cases in which Englishwomen who have married Germans are at present very bitterly anti-British, and it would not be safe in such cases to leave the Home Secretary without any power to denaturalise the wife. She would be left carrying on her husband's interests as an Englishwoman after his denaturalisation, although she might have been guilty of just the same overt acts of disloyalty. The Home Secretary, therefore, has accepted an Amendment to the effect that if the woman had herself been guilty of such things as would have
1182
earned her denaturalisation had she been a naturalised British subject, she may be denaturalised, although she was a natural born British subject, and I think that is quite a right and just provision. I would only ask this: Would she, in such cases, have the same right of appeal to the Committee presided over by a judge as her husband has?
I am not quite sure that that is so. I think, perhaps, there may be some doubt when we come to see this Amendment embodied in the Bill. I think she ought to have the same right—her case for a right of appeal is even stronger than that of her husband alien-born, she herself being British-born. I hope before we reach the Report stage my right hon. Friend will look at the Bill, and see that that right is preserved to her, if not by the Amendment we are now about to add, then by special words inserted on Report.
Mr. HOLT: My right hon. Friend referred to the case of an English woman who married a German and compelled him to become a naturalised British subject as a condition of marriage. If you compulsorily denaturalise the husband of an English woman and you make an alteration in the state of one of the parties to that marriage, you are inflicting an injustice on both. You cannot get away from it. If you are going to alter the nationality of the husband, the only way you can possibly do Justice to the wife is by giving her a complete opportunity of considering the contract, and whether she shall terminate it.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In substituted Clause 7A, at the end of Subsection (2), insert the words: "Where a certificate of naturalisation is revoked the former holder thereof shall be regarded as an alien and as a subject of the State to which he belonged at the time the certificate was granted."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 2.—(Minor Amendments of the Principal Act.)
The following Amendments shall be made in the principal Act:
(1) In paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section one (which defines natural-born British subjects); after the words "had been granted" there shall be inserted the words "or had become a British subject by reason of any annexation of territory, or was at the time of

1183
that person's birth in the service of the Crown"; and at the end of that Section the following Sub-section shall be inserted—
"(4) The certificate of a Secretary of State that a person was at any date in the service of the Crown shall, for the purposes of this Section, be conclusive."
(2) At the end of Section two (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation) the following Sub-section shall be inserted—
"(6) For the purposes of this Section a period spent in the service of the Crown may, if the Secretary of State thinks fit, be treated as equivalent to a period of residence in the United Kingdom."
(3) In Sub-section (1) of Section eight (which relates to the grant of certificates of naturalisation in British possessions) after the words "United Kingdom" there shall be inserted the words "and of a superior court of the possession for the High Court, and with the omission of any reference to the approval of the Lord Chancellor," and after the words "any certificate proposed to be granted" there shall be inserted the words "and any proposal to revoke any certificate."
(4) In Sub-section (1) of Section twenty-seven (which contains definitions) at the end of the definition of "British subject" after the words "has been granted" there shall be inserted the words "or a person who has become a subject of His Majesty by reason of any annexation of territory," and for Sub-section (2) of that Section the following Sub-section shall be substituted:—
"(2) Where in pursuance of this Act the name of a child is included in a certificate of naturalisation granted to his parent, or where, in pursuance of any Act repealed by this Act, any child has been deemed to be a naturalised British subject by reason of residence with his parent, such child shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be a person to whom a certificate of naturalisation has been granted."
Amendment made: In Sub-section (3), after the word "a" ["and of a superior Court"], insert the words "High Court or."—[Sir G. Cave.]
Sir W. DICKINSON: I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert—
"(4) In Section ten (which relates to the national status of married women) at the end of the Section there shall be added the words "and provided that where an alien is a subject of an enemy State it shall be lawful for his wife if she was a British subject before her marriage to make a declaration that she desires to resume British nationality, and thereupon the Secretary of State, if he is satisfied that it is advisable that she be permitted to do so, may grant her a certificate of naturalisation."
The Amendment is a change in the law, and it is one that I submit to the Committee has been rendered, if not more necessary, at any rate more apparently necessary, during the War. I want to give the Home Secretary full discretion in this matter, and to give him power to remedy some of the most crying evils that
1184
have made themselves apparent during the War. There are a very large number of British-born women—we have heard of them already this evening—who have, years ago, married Germans, and who now, all through the War, have suffered for that. I ask the Committee to take this opportunity of enabling these women to claim that their cases shall be reconsidered, and that they shall be, if the Home Secretary thinks it is advisable, readmitted to the benefits of British citizenship. With regard to what my hon. Friend opposite said, I know his views. They are quite patriotic. He believes that whatever the husband is or does, the wife must be and must do. But that is a new aspect of the law in England, because for many hundreds of years the British woman who married an alien did not therefore become an alien. Until the year 1908 an American woman did not by marrying an Englishman become an Englishwoman. It is quite a recent change, and a change I hold to be a mistake, but it was brought about in order to endeavour to bring the law of nationality in this country into consonance with the old Roman law, which held good for the rest of Europe. The old British law undoubtedly was that a British woman could not against her will lose her nationality by marrying an alien. But I want to bring the attention of the Committee back to the cases of the unfortunate women who have suffered through this War by the fact that they have nothing but the nationality of their husband. There is no reason why the husband and wife should not be of different nationality. There has never been any contract between them on the matter of nationality. The woman on marriage does promise to be of the same nationality as her husband. There is no logical reason for it, and I submit, with regard to these particular cases, it would be just and humane to allow the Secretary of State, after full inquiry, to permit a British-born woman on marriage with a foreigner to resume her British nationality. At the present moment, if a woman is divorced she can resume her British nationality. In these cases a woman cannot divorce her husband, and quite rightly so, but she should have the opportunity of resuming her British nationality. I hope the Home Secretary will see his way to concede what is a general demand on the part of women throughout the country.
Mr. ANDERSON: I, too, hope the right hon. Gentleman will give the Amendment favourable consideration. In this matter women are placed in a position of inferiority, but there is no doubt at all that the extension of political power to women will lead to a demand for the establishment of greater equality with regard to all these laws as between men and women. There are a large number of women to-day who have been placed by the War in a very pitiable position. They are British women; they know no language except the British language; their whole outlook is British, and yet they are treated as Germans, classified as Germans, and regarded as aliens inside this country. What is asked in this Amendment is that the Home Secretary shall have full power to investigate such cases, and, if he is satisfied that there is no reason why they should not resume their British nationality, that that should be done. Every safeguard is provided. The power rests with the Home Secretary and his Department. The Amendment will remove a very great injustice, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree to it.
Mr. T. WILSON: I would also appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to accept this Amendment. As the right hon. Gentleman (Sir W. Dickinson) has pointed out, a woman may be a shameless prostitute, and, on being divorced, she can claim to resume her British nationality, while the same privilege is refused to a pure woman who has never outraged the moral sense of the nation. The women of the country, who will soon have votes and will be a great political force, who are in favour of this proposal, have a right to have their demands carefully considered, and, apart from that, the demand should be conceded simply on the grounds of the requirements of justice.
11.0 P.M.
Sir G. CAVE: This raises a very big question indeed. My hon. Friend, who supports the Amendment, takes the view that even on marriage a wife should be entitled to retain her nationality as distinct from the nationality of the husband. This is a part of a much wider question than that which is dealt with in this Bill, and I must ask the Committee not to deal with this very wide and very thorny question in this Bill. It is a question which affects the whole of the law of nationality in different places, and one which ought to be considered very care-
1186
fully. I am not going to express myself as opposed even to the wider proposal that has been made, but I should like time to consider it, and to see what the consequences would be. But I do hope that the Committee will not deal either with the wider question which is involved or the narrower one which has been raised. The wife of a German when she marries him marries him for better or worse, and, after all, it is a strong thing for a wife, even when her husband belongs to an alien nationality, to separate herself from him during the War and to assume the nationality of a country which is at war with his. It would be a strong thing to sanction, and also a rather dangerous thing, but I do not want to pronounce finally on the matter. I want to study the whole subject, and to study the views of experts on the question. Meanwhile, I have some hope that my right hon. Friend will not press his Amendment. If it is possible, when this Bill is through, I will immediately take in hand the appointment of a Committee on this subject. The passing of the Bill without this provision will in no way prejudice my view as to giving full consideration to the whole subject.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: What chance would this expert Committee have of dealing with the matter? Before a Bill could be founded on their Report a very long time might elapse till this question could be dealt with. The Amendment is interesting because it does accept the principle of a British woman reverting to her British nationality where her condition is affected by the circumstances of the War, and the right hon. Gentleman has a strong reserve of power to safeguard himself against undesirable action being taken. I am not prepared to abandon a principle of this kind. Later the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Sir W. Dickinson) will move a new Clause which raises the whole question of principle, and if he goes to a Division I shall support him.
Mr. A. WILLIAMS: I am sorry the right hon. Gentleman has not seen his way to accept this limited proposal giving a woman the right to claim re-establishment as a British citizen. The Amendment merely says she is to have the right to express a desire to be re-established as a British subject, and that if the Secretary of State thinks it advisable, she shall be

1187
permitted to do so. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider before the Report stage this very limited proposal.
Mr. WILSON: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to give further consideration to this question between now and the Report stage. It really rests with the Secretary of State to say whether a woman shall be allowed to resume British citizenship or not.
Sir W. DICKINSON: May I point out that, although it is a great inducement to me to be told that there is going to be a Committee to inquire into this question, that Committee will not settle this particular point, which is urgent now. A Committee which sits for another year or so and then reports as to what the permanent naturalisation laws are to be will not affect these particular women for whom we are anxious to do something. They are women who in thousands of cases have given their sons to fight for us, whose sons have died on the battlefield for us, who are absolutely British in every sense, and I should have thought that the Home Secretary could have fallen in with the suggestion which has just been made and given the matter a little more sympathetic consideration before the Report stage.
Sir G. CAVE: I will think it over again.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 (Short Title and Printing) ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(National Status of Married Women.)
"The following Section shall be substituted for Section ten of the principal Act which relates to the national status of married women:

10. (1) A woman who is a British subject shall, notwithstanding her marriage to an alien, remain a British subject unless she makes a declaration of alienage and thereupon she shall cease to be a British subject and shall become an alien.

(2) A woman who is an alien shall, notwithstanding her marriage to a British subject, remain an alien unless she makes a declaration that she desires to be a British subject, and thereupon the Secretary of State may grant a certificate of naturalisation without requiring her to comply with the condition of residence or other conditions necessary for naturalisation in other cases.

(3) When a man ceases during the continuance of his marriage to be a British subject it shall be lawful for his wife to make a declaration
1188
that she desires to retain British nationality, and thereupon she shall be deemed to remain a British subject."—[Sir W. Dickinson.]

Brought up, and read the first time.
Sir W. DICKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I recognise that a late hour is not a suitable hour at which to discuss this question, and I am sorry I have not a full opportunity of laying this case before the Committee. I put the Clause down because I want to get consideration of the question. I venture to submit to the right hon. Gentleman that if he is going to have this matter investigated he ought to have it investigated by a Committee that is not a committee of experts. I understood the Home Secretary on the Second Reading to say that he proposed to have the whole question of nationality referred to a committee of experts, and I hope he will consider very carefully whether it ought not to be considered by a much larger Committee, especially with regard to the question of the position of women. That question has never yet been properly dealt with. The women have petitioned. I believe the Home Secretary has been asked to receive a deputation on the subject, and he has refused. I am told that they applied to the Imperial Conference to be allowed to send a deputation and that they were refused, and they have never yet had a proper opportunity of putting their views on this question before a tribunal. I hope, however, as the right hon. Gentleman said he will have an inquiry, it will be one at which all views can be received and adjudicated upon.
Mr. C. ROBERTS: It is quite impossible to deal adequately with this Clause at this time of night. The House is tired, and I think we ought to meet the convenience of the House, but I venture to suggest to my right hon. Friend that if he will put this Clause down for the Report stage it would have a much better opportunity of consideration by the House.
Question put and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Duration of Act.)
This Act shall have effect only during the continuance of the present War and a period of three years thereafter.—[Sir W. Dickinson.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Sir W. DICKINSON: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

1189
The result of the discussions to-night gives additional reasons why we should not complicate our permanent nationality laws by Amendments made chiefly owing to the peculiar circumstances of the War. The permanent settlement of our nationality Jaws open very large and important questions, and if my proposed new Clause is accepted it will give time to reconsider the whole question.
Mr. D. MASON: I would like to support this. As the findings of the Committee to inquire into the whole subject will not be able to be embodied in this Bill by the time it becomes law, the right hon. Gentleman might see his way to accept this Clause, and so enable this House, when that Committee has formulated its decisions, to make any Amendments which may seem desirable. I hope the Home Secretary, who has been most reasonable throughout the whole discussion in meeting us in every quarter of the House, will see his way to accept this most reasonable suggestion.
Sir G. CAVE: I really do not look on this as a war measure. There ought to be permanently a power to denaturalise, and the Amendments to the seventh Clause are intended to be permanent Amendments of the Act of 1914. Besides that, of course, if this Clause were passed we should have to drop on Report Clause 3 of the Bill. I would rather not accept this, but of course it is quite understood that when we get our Report from the Committee on the whole law we may then consider and remodel not only the whole law of naturalisation, but the provisions of this Bill when passed. Perhaps with that explanation my right hon. Friend will not press this Clause.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Holding of Office, Etc., in Certain Cases.)
Any person whose certificate of naturalisation has been revoked shall cease to hold any position or office which is reserved to British subjects.—[Mr. Neville.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. NEVILLE: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
It seems to me that this new Clause speaks for itself and seems to follow automatically from the effect of denaturalisation.
Sir G. CAVE: Probably the intention of this Clause is that if a man has been denaturalised he should no longer be
1190
capable of holding a position which an alien cannot hold. That I think is the effect of the Bill. If the hon. and learned Member will look at my Amendment, adopted a few minutes ago, dealing with revoked certificates, he will see that that has the effect of the proposed Amendment.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Naturalisation Certificates.)
No certificate of naturalisation shall for a period of five years after the termination of the present War be granted to a subject of any State now at war with His Majesty.—[Mr. Stewart.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Mr. STEWART: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This new Clause merely expresses a wish that after the War is over we might be allowed a certain breathing space in which we could settle our domestic affairs by ourselves. We think it would be advisable that there should be an interval before we proceed to absorb foreign elements into our ranks. We have been so easy-going in the past that we have enlisted a large number of undesirable people. I remember going through an election not long ago in the East End of London, where I found that the political addresses and voting cards were printed in a foreign language. If we put in an interval of five years it would give some of those people who want to be British subjects an opportunity of at least learning the language of the country. With regard to the chief of our enemies, after the War is over, we do not wish to trade with them, see them, or have anything to do with them, and we certainly do not want to take them into the brotherhood of citizenship.
Sir G. CAVE: In principle I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend, but I am rather afraid of the form of the Amendment. We have adopted at the Home Office a decision that as a matter of discretion no German shall be naturalised for five years after the War. That is the general recommendation which we propose to follow, as well as other rules of administration which I need not indicate now. But under this new Clause we could not naturalise a British-born widow; we could not naturalise a Czech, a Pole, an Alsatian, an Armenian, or the members of any other friendly race. I am afraid to adopt the particular form of this

1191
Amendment, but, while without it I should be free to naturalise the people I have indicated belonging to friendly races, I do not intend to grant certificates to enemy subjects for the period I have mentioned.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Colonel GRETTON: Before the Amendment is withdrawn—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Sir D. Maclean): The Motion has been withdrawn by leave of the Committee.
General HICKMAN: On a point of Order. May I point out that the hon. and gallant Member rose before the Motion was withdrawn?
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: That may be, but I did not see him.
Colonel GRETTON: On a point of Order. I endeavoured to attract your attention, but I regret I did not succeed in doing so. All I desired to remark was—
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot allow the hon. Member to proceed in view of the clear ruling of the Chair that the Motion had been withdrawn before I saw the hon. Member.
Sir J. BUTCHER: The form in which I wish to propose the Clause which stands in my name—(Status of Women in Certain Cases)—is slightly different from that in which it appears on the Paper. It makes no difference to the substance, but makes it a little narrower. The form in which I wish to move it is a follows:
"A natural-born British woman who before the War married a subject of the countries now at War with His Majesty—"
The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I cannot accept a manuscript Clause until I have been through the Clauses printed on the Paper. I must therefore call on the hon. and gallant Member for Enfield.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Capacity of Alien as to Real Property.)
In so far as it applies to real property of any description Section seventeen of the principal Act is hereby repealed, and for the duration of the War and for five years subsequently real property of any description shall not be taken or acquired by an alien or denaturalised British subject except under licence granted by the Secretary of State, and after inquiry, if he thinks fit, by a Committee constituted by him for the purpose.—[Major Newman.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Major NEWMAN: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I quite admit that this Clause seeks to amend the principal Act in one particular only, but in a very important one. I understand the Home Secretary to say on the Second Beading that in this particular Amendment of Clause 7 of the principal Act he had to get the assent of the Overseas Dominions. He suggested that it would not be advisable to further extend the Bill, for if this were undertaken they would again have to seek the assent of the Overseas Dominions. I quite frankly allow that my proposed Clause does suggest a further Amendment of the 1914 Act, but I submit that this is a very important Amendment, and one that ought to be accepted. It affects ourselves alone. The case of ourselves and the Overseas Dominions—the continents and sub-continents—is different. The case of Great Britain and of Australia and South Africa are totally different. In the one case there are vast lands to the population, and that is different to this small Island. Therefore I hope, whether the Home Secretary accepts or rejects this Amendment, he will not urge its non-acceptance on the ground of not being able to consult the Overseas Dominions. This is a domestic matter for ourselves alone. I am perfectly convinced that the representatives of the Overseas Dominions now in England would not for a moment seek to interfere in a domestic concern of this sort. All the provisions that were in the Naturalisation Act of 1870, as the Committee know, were continued in and reaffirmed in the Act of 1914. There was no more remarkable provision than the provision in the Act of 1870, transferred almost bodily to the Act of 1914, dealing with the status of aliens and the power of aliens to acquire and hold land in this country. Clause 17 of the Act of 1914 provides that—
"real and personal property of every description may be taken, held, and disposed of by an alien in the same manner in all respects as by a natural-born British subject and a title to real and personal property may be derived through an alien in the same manner in all respects as though a natural-born British subject."
This is something almost unheard of. The Committee will notice that I am not arguing about personal property but about real property, and I suggest that for the time of the War and for five years afterwards no alien, whether friendly, alien, or neutral or enemy alien, should be allowed

1193
to acquire land without special licence granted by the Home Secretary or some other competent authority. I can adduce a few very good reasons why we should adopt this proposal. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide, divide!"] After all, the Home Secretary has told the House that he has power under the Defence of the Realm Act to prevent an alien acquiring property. I have looked through the Regulations very carefully, and I confess that I cannot find that Regulation.
Sir G. CAVE: I do not think that I ever said that.
Major NEWMAN: Then that makes my case all the stronger. That means that an alien, whether friendly, neutral, or enemy, can as a matter of fact acquire property in this country at the present moment and the Government have no power to stop him. I think the Government ought to have power to stop him and prevent an alien, unless you are satisfied as to his loyalty, from acquiring land, and if you have not that power then you ought to take it under this Bill. It is perfectly notorious to everybody in this country that land is being acquired here by aliens. Only to-day the hon. Member for Essex brought forward a case where a large acreage of land had been acquired by a syndicate, some members of which were of enemy nationality. This was a case where land had been acquired by men who were in part aliens and not natural-born British subjects. I could give other cases. In Essex the other day an alien firm made an attempt to buy up a business with pasture lands attached, which was being sold by the Board of Trade and which had been in the possession of an enemy alien. That sale was stopped on representations made through questions in this House, but there is a danger of aliens acquiring land in this country. We do not want them to do this, and I suggest, in order to make this Bill a little bit more useful, we might add this Clause, providing that during the War, and for a term of five years after, we should not allow any alien to acquire land unless he gets a licence from the Home Secretary. The drafting of my Clause may be bad, and it may need amendment. At any rate, something of this nature should be put into the Bill. I attach great importance to it, and, if I do not get some assurance from the Home Secretary either that he has power now to stop an alien getting land or that he means, as soon as
1194
the present Regulations expire or before, by some Bill, to prevent aliens getting land at any rate for some years after the War, I shall divide the Committee against the Government.
Sir G. CAVE: I think my hon. and gallant Friend has not very clearly distinguished between aliens and enemy aliens. An enemy alien cannot acquire land during the War. If he does acquire land, or if he owns land, it can be vested in the Public Trustee. Therefore, the only person that the Clause deals with is the friendly alien.
Major NEWMAN: Or a neutral; and I would point out that it is to have effect for five years after the War.
Sir G. CAVE: Yes; or a neutral. The law regarding the ownership of land in England by aliens was changed in 1870, when a provision was passed that aliens might acquire and own land. That has been the law for forty-eight years, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes to repeal the Section under which the law holds good. In other words, he would destroy the title of ownership.
Major NEWMAN: My Amendment is that they shall not acquire land now. I am not dealing with those who own land already.
Sir G. CAVE: The Clause proposes to repeal Section 17, under which they can hold land and title can be traced through them. I am not dealing with the drafting of the Clause, but, as a matter of fact, that is the effect of it. I do not belittle the importance of the question in the least. It is a big matter, and I do not think that we ought to deal with it in this Bill. I do not say that aliens ought to hold land in this country, but I do not think that we ought to change the law by this Bill, and I really cannot accept the Clause.
Mr. STEWART: I would like to say, in support of my hon. and gallant Friend, that I know of a case in which a man who was by birth a British subject but who became the subject of another country. He occupies and owns a considerable extent of land in this country. He is a great pacifist, and at the beginning of the War it came to my knowledge that he had a certain number of men attached to his staff, gamekeepers and so on, and it was one of the fundamental conditions of his service that he

1195
would not have a single man who was in the Territorials or who was assisting in any military service of any sort or kind. I remember at the time making inquiries. In the rush of business the matter was not brought before the House, but I do think that it is a matter of public policy for which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will have some regard.
Mr. NEVILLE: I should like to support what has been said by my hon. Friends. I was glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that this is a big question. In 1870, or just afterwards, it was thought there would be no European war. We had had our International Exhibition. We had got everybody together, and we were going to have friendship in the world and were not going to allow all the old stupid things to keep us apart. Aliens can or could acquire our coalfields, or land in the neighbourhood of ports, or overlooking arsenals, or in situations where, if they chose to do so, they could make gun emplacements which would enable guns to be trained upon London, and they could generally, without any interference by anybody in this country, use land in anticipation of war or for the purpose of making it more difficult to defend the country. I hope that when the Home Secretary deals with the larger question both he and the House will consider most carefully the question whether any alien, whether friendly or unfriendly, should be entitled to hold any land in this country without the consent of the Government.
Major NEWMAN: May I ask the Home Secretary whether it is possible at the present moment to prevent a neutral alien from buying land in this country under the Defence of the Realm Acts or anything else during the War?
Sir G. CAVE: That is not the question.
Question put, and negatived.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Status of Women in Certain Cases.)
A natural-born British woman who before the War married a subject of a country now at war with His Majesty, and who has been separated from him for a period of not less than ten years, shall be entitled to be re-admitted to British nationality under the same conditions as if her husband were dead.—[Sir J. Butcher.]
Brought up, and read the first time.
Sir J. BUTCHER: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
I shall put the case for this Clause much clearer if I give the Committee a specific
1196
case which has been brought to my knowledge. Some years before the War a British-born woman married a German. After some experience of him she came to the conclusion that she could not possibly continue to live with him. They separated many years ago, and are never likely to see each other again, so far as she is concerned, if she can avoid it. He has gone to Germany, and is bringing every pressure, almost brutality, to bear upon her to force her to go back to Germany by depriving her of money, and so on, but she refuses to go. She feels bitterly the stigma and stain of having this German nationality imposed upon her, and she desires to have her British nationality restored. It is not a matter of sentiment alone, because, while she is of German nationality, which was imposed upon her at her marriage against her will, she cannot change her name. She has a German name, and the possession of that prevents her from earning a livelihood, which she is anxious to do by teaching music or drawing, or something of that sort. In these circumstances, I ask the Home Secretary to take power to readmit her to British nationality. If her husband were only certainly dead, there would be no difficulty about it. If she could get a divorce from him there would be no difficulty, but, unfortunately, for some technical reason, she cannot get a divorce. She is, and wants to be, as dead to him as if he were really in his grave. There is no theological or religious question involved here, as if I were asking the right hon. Gentleman to divorce the lady on the ground that she is merely separated from the husband. It is merely a question, Aye or No, is it reasonable that a woman who by her marriage had a German nationality forced upon her, should be compelled to abide not only under the stigma but under the grave disadvantage of this German nationality for the rest of her life? Cannot the right hon. Gentleman see his way to release her from this most unfortunate situation?
Colonel GRETTON: I know of two cases exactly similar to that which has been cited by my hon. and learned Friend. They were women who married Germans, and found it impossible to live with them. A settlement was come to in both cases that husband and wife should separate. They are never likely to meet again, but these two unfortunate women retain their German ntationality, with all its technical disadvantages and the stigma which

1197
attaches to them. Clearly some relief should be given in cases of this kind, and I urge upon my right hon. Friend that he should give consideration and accept an Amendment which will meet cases of great hardship, which clearly should not be allowed to continue under present conditions.
Sir G. CAVE: Both my hon. Friends have cited hard cases, but I am most unwilling to take action on matters of detail before the question is dealt with as a whole. Besides which, this merely refers to voluntary separation. The case of women, of course, can be dealt with. I had a case the other day of a charwoman who was the wife of a German. She could not get work because of her name, but I had power to licence her to change her name, and I did so. That was a very special case of a poor woman who could not earn even 10s. a week. That kind of case will always be considered, but I am afraid I must resist the Amendment.
Sir J. BUTCHER: When my right hon. Friend comes to consider the bigger ques-
1198
tion, can he give an assurance that cases of this sort will be considered, and, if possible, dealt with?
Sir G. CAVE: Most certainly.
Colonel GRETTON: Can my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that the bigger question will be dealt with at a time not far distant?
Sir G. CAVE: I have already held out all the hope I can.
Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 67.]
The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.
It being after half-past Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Fourteen minutes before Twelve o'clock.

WAR.
  MINISTER OF COMMERCE.
  MINISTER OF COMMERCE.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.
  INCOME TAX (ABATEMENTS).
  INCOME TAX (ABATEMENTS).
FOOD SUPPLIES.
  CATTLE GRADING.
  CATTLE GRADING.
  WOODWALTON FEN (LABOUR).
  WOODWALTON FEN (LABOUR).
  GAELIC LEAGUE.
  GAELIC LEAGUE.
  CARRIGAHOLT COLLEGE, CLARE.
  CARRIGAHOLT COLLEGE, CLARE.
  ZEEBRUGGE AND OSTEND OPERATIONS (DECORATIONS).
  ZEEBRUGGE AND OSTEND OPERATIONS (DECORATIONS).
  TERRITORIAL FORCE DECORATION.
  TERRITORIAL FORCE DECORATION.
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RATION MONEY).
  WOUNDED SOLDIERS (RATION MONEY).
MILITARY SERVICE.
  VOLUNTEER SERVICE.
  VOLUNTEER SERVICE.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CASES UNDER INQUIRY.
  CHECKWEIGHER, ROTHERHAM.
  CHECKWEIGHER, ROTHERHAM.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  MEDICAL GRADING.
  TRIBUNAL DECISIONS (APPEALS).
  TRIBUNAL DECISIONS (APPEALS).
  PROTECTION CERTIFICATES.
  PROTECTION CERTIFICATES.
  AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (SCOTLAND).
  AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES (SCOTLAND).
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
  PRISONERS OF WAR.
MUNITIONS.
  NATIONAL FACTORIES, ETC. (AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT).
  NATIONAL FACTORIES, ETC. (AUDITOR-GENERAL'S REPORT).
  ALIENS.
  ALIENS.
  HYDE PARK MEETING (PROHIBITION).
  HYDE PARK MEETING (PROHIBITION).
  CAPTAIN BOWEN-COULTHURST.
  CAPTAIN BOWEN-COULTHURST.
  TRADING WITH ENEMY (LICENCES).
  TRADING WITH ENEMY (LICENCES).
  FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
  FUEL AND LIGHTING ORDER.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  CONSULAR SERVICE.
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (TRANSFERS).
  WAR SAVINGS CERTIFICATES (TRANSFERS).
  REGENT'S PARK.
  REGENT'S PARK.
  Education Bill.
  Education Bill.
  Women Teachers (Salaries).
  Women Teachers (Salaries).
  Small Holdings, Perthshire.
  Small Holdings, Perthshire.
THE EARL OF ATHLONE.
Sir Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George Cambridge, G.C.B., G.C.V.O., C.M.G., D.S.O., formerly known as His Serene Highness Prince Alexander Augustus Frederick William Alfred George of Teck, having been created Viscount TREMATON in the County of Cambridge, and Earl of ATHLONE—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.

A PERSONAL STATEMENT.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON): I ask your Lordships' permission, before the commencement of public business, to make a brief personal statement with regard to an incident which happened yesterday afternoon. There was a discussion here on a Motion that had been placed upon the Paper by my noble friend Lord Wimborne, and I was unfortunately prevented by illness from being present on that occasion; nor ought I to be here this afternoon. But I felt compelled to come to the House without delay in order to correct the misapprehensions—serious misapprehensions—under which your Lordships must have been left by certain statements that were made by my noble friend. In the course of his remarks Lord Wimborne three times stated to your Lordships' House that his Motion had been postponed at my instigation. That, my Lords, is not the case. I never asked the noble Lord to postpone his Motion. What I did—more than once—was to ask him not to pursue it, in the public interest, and to that appeal from me he turned a deaf ear.
The second point is this. In the course of the speech, in reply, that was made by my noble friend the Lord Privy Seal, I read in the OFFICIAL REPORT the following passage—
"The EARL of CRAWFORD: Lord Curzon invited the noble Lord to withdraw his Motion, and he had tried on several occasions to see the noble Lord in this House.
"LORD WIMBORNE: That is not true."
My noble friend is at liberty to pronounce in your Lordships' House upon his own actions and his own movements, but he is not at liberty to pronounce on mine. What
918
the noble Earl, Lord Crawford, said was true in every particular. On two separate occasions I came down to your Lordships' House with the desire to have a conversation with my noble friend on the matter. My duty commonly keeps me closely seated on this Bench, and I am not as free to leave it as other members of your Lordships' House may be; but on two occasions, after my duties here were discharged, I sought the noble Lord, unfortunately without success.
The third point is this. The noble Lord, in his remarks, made a great point of his willingness to tell me what he proposed to say. I acknowledge his courtesy in that respect, and I was much obliged for it. But I was not concerned with what the noble Lord proposed to say; I was concerned with his not saying anything at all. I had consulted the representatives of the Foreign Office, and been told by them that a discussion upon the matter raised by the noble Lord's Questions—the subject of Herr von Kühlmann's speech, and the question of peace terms, and so on—would be singularly inappropriate at the present time. In these circumstances I was not the least likely to ask the noble Lord the details of a speech which more than once I had asked him in the public interest not to deliver.
To sum up, the facts of the case are these. The noble Lord, in the first place, put his Motion upon the Paper without consulting me in advance as to its terms—a course which, in the case of Foreign Office questions of a very delicate character, particularly during the course of the war and at a peculiarly critical moment of the war, is most unusual. Secondly, I intimated to the noble Lord that in the view of the Foreign Office it was undesirable that a discussion of his Motion should take place. Thirdly, I told him that if he persisted in making his Motion I should not be in a position to reply. And, lastly, I appealed to him, in these circumstances, to take his Motion off the Paper. Nevertheless my noble friend felt it consistent with his duty to keep his Motion on the Paper, and to make the speech which he did yesterday afternoon. He made no communication to me or to the Foreign Office of the points that he proposed to raise, and when my noble friend Lord Crawford, in my absence, entered the House to speak on my behalf he knew no more of what the noble Lord proposed to say than I did.

919
Finally, Lord Wimborne concluded his remarks by reading a Resolution, the terms of which he had not placed on the Paper, and which he only divulged at the close of his observations. I do not suppose for a moment that my noble friend Lord Wimborne, in the series of incidents to which I have referred, meant to be either discourteous to me or unfair to the Foreign Office, which for the moment I represent in your Lordships' House; but I am bound to say that he adopted a most unusual procedure, and one for which I can find no precedent in my own experience of your Lordships' House.
LORD WIMBORNE: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to offer one or two observations on the speech of the noble Earl the Leader of the House. The points that he has raised seem to me to vary considerably in importance. Some are almost of microscopic interest—for instance, the question of postponement as against total withdrawal. The noble Earl says that he never asked me to postpone my Motion. May I refresh his memory to this extent? On the day that I put down the Motion I wrote in the morning and told the noble Earl of my intention to do so. He sent me a message, by what I am sure he will regard as a peculiarly trustworthy messenger, asking me to postpone the Motion, on the ground that he had a great many speeches to make, was overburdened with public work, and could not possibly, at short notice, deal with a subject of magnitude and importance. I came down to your Lordships' House and I saw my noble friend Lord Colebrooke, and told him that I was quite willing to meet the noble Earl with regard to dates. I left the House, but I understand that the noble Earl subsequently saw Lord Colebrooke, and, after conversation, Lord Colebrooke went to the Table and took my Motion off the Paper. I do not complain of that; I am sure the noble Lord wished to act in the interests of all parties. But it proves that I was asked to postpone the Motion.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I am loth to interrupt my noble friend. But surely what he alleges now in itself disproves his argument that he was asked to postpone the Motion. When Lord Colebrooke spoke to me on the matter he said he had been invited by the noble Lord, Lord Wimborne, to act as he thought best. I agreed with him, and accepted the re-
920
sponsibility of removing the Motion instead of postponing it.
LORD WIMBORNE: If the noble Earl will permit me to read a letter which he sent to me privately, I think I could show him that this was the point I made. It is a very small point whether the Motion was to be postponed or definitely withdrawn. With regard to the other matter, I understand that the noble Earl does not complain of lack of courtesy; indeed, he knows that I was only too anxious to give him the substance of the speech I wished to make, so as to equip him with all that I could for any reply he desired to make, and that I placed myself entirely at his disposal. I suggested a conversation as the quickest way of dealing with the business, and I came up to London, waited here entirely at his disposal, but never heard from him. It is true that I met the noble Earl quite accidentally walking into your Lordships' House, and he pressed me again to withdraw the Motion altogether, as he took no interest in the matter that I proposed to raise. He said that he was not concerned with what I was going to say, because he was totally opposed to my saying anything at all. It is on this point that I think I am entitled to make some observation.
It is certainly the first time I have ever heard that any Minister of the Crown takes upon himself, and claims the right, to dictate what subjects may or may not be discussed in your Lordships' House. That is a doctrine to which I certainly find it impossible to subscribe. It seems to me to be totally subversive of the theory and practice of free Parliaments. There is a method by which this House can protect itself, and, if necessary, the alleged public interest, from indiscreet observations. That method is well known to your Lordships' House, and it is to move "that the noble Lord be no longer heard." There is another method to which also recourse can be had, and I think was adopted in this case—to maintain a total silence on the points raised in the Motion. The noble Earl, Lord Crawford, admitted that he was totally unable to make any reply to the not very recondite subject which I ventured to bring to your Lordships' notice. That, surely, ought to satisfy the noble Earl who leads the House. In so far as in his view my observations were indiscreet, he has, by the silence he imposed on his colleague, protected the public interest. I think, on the point of the right of members

921
to speak on any matter, subject to the views that your Lordships as a body take upon it, that this right is one with which we cannot part.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I say that the noble Lord is incorrect in saying that, at the request of members of the Government, a Question is not always put off. For months I have asked the noble Earl the Leader of the House for permission to raise a question about Persia, and I have not yet been allowed to obtain information upon it.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, I should be the last to wish to pursue the question with my noble friend Lord Wimborne, who has not in substance denied the greater part of what I said in my remarks; but I must repudiate the doctrine that he has just laid down. No one is, I hope, more vigilant than I am in the defence and guardianship of the rights of your Lordships' House, and noble Lords will bear me out when I say that it is very seldom, indeed, that I shirk an encounter. There is scarcely any question which noble Lords raise—and they raise a good many from day to day and week to week—in which I do not to the best of my ability give them an answer; but that is a different thing from the proposition that any member of your Lordships' House is to be at liberty on any subject whatever to compel the Government to reply. That is a position which I dispute.
LORD WIMBORNE: You did not reply to me.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I dare say, but I extended as much courtesy as I possibly could to the noble Lord. I did not want him to submit the matter and then be subjected to the indignity of not receiving a reply to his remarks. Having the honour of the friendship of the noble Lord, I appealed to him, in advance, not to pursue the course that he desired to pursue. That appeal he rejected. As regards the practice in these matters, may I point out to the noble Lord that foreign affairs are questions in which I have been much interested in your Lordships' House, and when I sat in the past on the benches opposite I have often proposed to put down Motions on the Paper relating to critical matters of foreign policy, and on no occasion that I can recall, when I have been
922
appealed to by the spokesman of the Foreign Office sitting upon this Bench to refrain from dealing with a subject, have I refused to postpone or withdraw my Motion or Question. It is an understood law, which every one of your Lordships observes. I have nothing more to say about the matter.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: My Lords, I hope that the discussion may be regarded as closed. I was not able to be in the House during the progress of the discussion yesterday on the Motion of my noble friend opposite. I had not been aware of his intention to raise the question further than from seeing his Notice on the Paper. The noble Earl who leads the House considers, I gather from his remarks now, that a breach of the ordinary comity of the House was committed by my noble friend in persisting in his Motion. I should hesitate to lay down any general rule on a subject of this kind. There may be cases in which a man feels it his duty to pursue the discussion of a subject even though His Majesty's Government may desire, for good reasons or bad—in this case, I fully admit, good reasons—that the subject should not be discussed, and I cannot help feeling that in a matter of this kind it is a misfortune for the credit and reputation of your Lordships' House that any discussion of this sort should take place in public. My experience in these affairs, which is not altogether short, has led me to believe that a difficulty of this kind can almost always be removed by a frank interchange of views outside the House; that it is possible for free and sometimes quite intimate revelations of facts and policy to be made privately, and by an honourable understanding with His Majesty's Government, which can convinces any noble Lord who has put down a Motion on the Paper that it is not in the public interest that the Motion should be proceeded with. Whether any attempt was made in this instance to conclude the matter in that way, I do not know; but, if not, I sincerely wish that it had, because we must all feel, I think, that a discussion such as has taken place is not advantageous to your Lordships' House, and does not in fact add to the dignity of our debates.

EDUCATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: May I ask the Lord President whether he is able to tell us anything regarding the course of business during the next week, and in particular with regard to the Education Bill, which we have just read a first time.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, in reply to the noble Marquess, I think that I had better extend my vision over a rather wider range than the next week, to which the noble Marquess suggested that I should confine my attention. Your Lordships really want to know what is the course of business that is proposed up to the time of the adjournment. It is contemplated that Parliament should rise for the Recess if possible on August 8, and your Lordships will desire to know what is the bill of fare that His Majesty's Government propose to place before you in the interim.
The most important measure that will come under your notice is the Education Bill, to which you have just given a First Reading. That Bill will be circulated and be in your Lordships' hands, I hope, tomorrow. I trust, therefore, that we may be able to pass it through all its stages in this House before we rise on or about August 8. I think that there should be ample time to do so, and the arrangements that I would suggest to your Lordships are the following. The Bill being in your Lordships' hands to-morrow, I hope that you will be willing to take the Second Reading on Tuesday and Wednesday of next week, July 23 and 24. I hope that two days will suffice for the Second Reading, and if necessary, of course, we could sit after dinner on both days. Then I propose to put the Committee stage down for a week later—Wednesday, July 31, and Thursday, August 1; extending that period if it be necessary for your Lordships' convenience. If we succeed in passing those stages of the Bill by that date, I think there ought to be no difficulty in securing the remaining stages before we adjourn.
I do not think that I need say much, or indeed anything at all, about the Education Bill now, except this—that I hope your Lordships will be willing to treat it as I think it has been treated in another place, and as we may fairly claim to have it treated here—namely, as a non-con-
924
troversial measure. It is quite true that there may be differences of opinion about particular provisions of the Bill, but it is a Bill about the general principles and scheme of which there is almost universal agreement; and I believe that the friends of the Bill, of whom there are many in your Lordships' House on both sides, will themselves be most anxious not merely that it should receive full consideration at your hands, but that it should be passed into law with as little delay as possible. Of course, it is true that a measure of that sort could be postponed to a later date. But the risks of the future are not inconsiderable, and I think there will be a general feeling that if, with due regard to your Lordships' wish to discuss this Bill very thoroughly, we can succeed in passing it through all its stages and enable it to be placed on the Statute Book before we rise in August, it will be very much to the public advantage.
As for the other Bills coming from another place to which we shall ask your Lordships' attention, there are two or three of some importance. The first of these is the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Bill. This is a Bill giving wider powers for the revocation of certificates of naturalisation. The Bill was approved in principle at the Imperial Conference of 1917. A draft Bill was then drawn up and circulated to the self-governing Dominions and to India, and it has now been introduced into Parliament, having been approved by them. The Bill has passed its Second Reading in the House of Commons, and it remains to go through its final stages there. The next Bill is the Statutory Undertakings (Temporary Increase of Charges) Bill. This Bill has been framed to give effect to the recommendations made by the Select Committees of the House of Commons which have recently reported on the case of gas and tramway undertakings whose financial position has been adversely affected by circumstances arising out of the war. This Bill has also obtained its Second Reading in another place. Thirdly, there is the Trade Boards Bill, a Bill to enable the Minister of Labour to bring a new trade under the Trade Boards Act, 1909, by means of a special Order instead of by means of a Provisional Order. There are, further, three Money Bills, entitled respectively the War Loan Bill, the War Obligations Bill, the Public Works Loans Bill—the last an annual measure—none of which, I think, can occupy your Lordships very long.

925
It is possible that in order to deal adequately with this programme we may have to ask your Lordships to sit sometimes after dinner—for instance, in the Committee stage of the Education Bill, following the example which we set in the Committee stage of the Representation of the People Bill and of the Corn Production Bill last year; and it is also not unlikely that in order to discharge this duty I may ask your Lordships to meet sometimes on Monday and Friday. That is all that is at present contemplated; but it is possible that other legislation may reach us from another place; it depends upon the progress of business there, as to which I can say nothing. Your Lordships may rely upon me, if any such event occurs, to give you due warning as to the intentions or hopes of His Majesty's Government in the matter. I trust that this brief explanation will enable your Lordships to understand the programme that we respectfully place before you, and that the arrangements which I have suggested will be suitable to your Lordships' convenience.
VISCOUNT MIDLETON: My Lords, I rise to ask my noble friend one question on a subject which he has not touched upon. I think your Lordships will see that the programme sketched by the noble Earl is a pretty considerable one to be filled out in three weeks, and I am sure that many members on this side of the House will wish to guard themselves against accepting complete responsibility for carrying the Education Bill through all its stages before we adjourn. I think it must be left open until the debate on the Second Reading to see whether it is possible that the very important questions which may have to be discussed can be dealt with in the following week in Committee, or whether it is really feasible to get rid of the Bill in the short space of time which will then be left to us. I only wish to put in a caveat on that point. I am sure your Lordships will desire to discuss so urgent a Bill as the Aliens Bill before rising, and the necessary money measures, of course. It is a very considerable demand to make to ask that all these Bills, some of which have been for many months before the House of Commons, should be dealt with here as usual in a very short space of time.
I should also like to ask the noble Earl whether he proposes in any form to invite the House to discuss the Indian proposals
926
of Mr. Montagu before we adjourn. I think it is important that we should know what the intention of the Government is in that respect.
EARL CURZON OF KEDLESTON: I have not had the opportunity of consulting either the Secretary of State for India or my noble friend Lord Islington, and therefore I hesitate to give a definite reply. So far as I know, it is not in contemplation on the part of the Government to seek a discussion now. The proposals have, as your Lordships know, been printed and circulated, and an expression of public opinion, both from responsible quarters in India and also from this country, is sought. No doubt a time will arrive when your Lordships will think it part of your duty to have a discussion upon the matter. Whether or not you will wish to do so before the adjournment does not rest with me to say. Other noble Lords will decide as they think best. I should not have thought that there was any great urgency in having a discussion at this moment. I should have been inclined to say that on the whole it would be better to wait to see the reception which these proposals meet with, both in this country and in India, before noble Lords commit themselves to any final expression of opinion.

IPSWICH DOCK BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a and passed, and sent to the Commons.

A MINISTRY OF HEALTH.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE rose to call attention to the desirability of establishing a Ministry of Health without undue delay; and to move to resolve—
That this House urges His Majesty's Government to introduce at an early date a Bill to constitute a Ministry of Health.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Resolution that stands in my name I make no apology for bringing before your Lordships' House such an extremely important subject. It is particularly appropriate that it should be debated in the House of Lords, because it has been barked

927
and blocked and put into the background in the House of Commons. We have heard something to-day in a debate which took place just now with regard to free speech in this House, and I believe that the general public outside is proud of the privileges of this House and would be very sorry indeed to see any diminution of those privileges. I do not wish to go into the controversy which we have just had, except to re-affirm, as far as a private member may do, that the only ultimate constitutional authority with regard to free speech in this House is a majority of the members of your Lordships' House present on a particular occasion.
With regard to the Ministry of Health, there is no doubt that this is the most important subject to which we could possibly address ourselves. I could cite many historical authorities in favour of the principle of health as affecting the life of the nation. If your Lordships will allow me, I will only take one. It is that of Disraeli, who, you will remember, reminded an audience I think at Manchester in 1872 that the Vulgate version of Solomon's words, "Vanitas vanitatum omnia vanitas" was really intended by that wise and witty king to be "sanitas sanitatum omnia sanitas."
LORD WHITTENHAM: Mr. Gladstone said it.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I do not advise the noble Lord to say too much about Mr. Gladstone in this respect. The contemporary Whigs of the day called all this sort of thing "the policy of sewage." I should be very sorry to enter into a controversy about it, but I believe that it is common knowledge that Disraeli said that. Am I not right?
THE MARQUESS OF CREWE: Yes, you are right.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: He went on to say—
"After all, you cannot possibly over-estimate the importance of this subject. Your land may be covered by historic trophies, you may have museums of art and of science, and you may have galleries, and your people may be covered by historic trophies, you may have museums of art and of science, and you may have galleries, and your people may be even famous in the annals and action of the time, but if the stature of the people every ten years decreases and the population every ten years diminishes, the history of your nation will very soon be a history of the past."
I would only add to this one more saying of contemporary historical importance, and that is one which I have quoted to your
928
Lordships before of the illustrious Sovereign who rules over these Islands, and who has reminded us, in his own immortal phrase, that "the foundations of glory are set in the homes of the people."
With regard to the particular principle of the Ministry of Health, we have on our side all the principal pioneers of racial reconstruction. We have among others Dr. Saleeby, who is one of the greatest prophets of eugenics in this country, and who has spared neither time nor trouble to address meetings on this great subject throughout the land where innumerable resolutions have been proposed and passed; and he himself proposed the first resolution on a public platform with regard to the Ministry of Health as an urgent war measure at a meeting at the Duchess of Marlborough's house as far back as three years ago. We have also Major Waldorf Astor, who has taken a great interest in this matter, and who calls it "a sound business proposition." Lord Milner said the other day that he was in full agreement as to the urgency of a Ministry of Health. That is my position too. Lord Milner said—
"We could not expect to have it in its final and complete form now, but a substantial benefit will be obtained by unifying control at the centre under one head."
We have also Major-General Sir Bertrand Dawson, who said—
"The foundation of the Ministry of Health is the most pressing of all reconstruction problems."
And last, but not least, we have the late Lord Rhondda, who said—
"The Prime Minister was heart and soul with the movement, and the Ministry of Health was a most urgent war measure, for 1,000 babies were lost every week through maladministration of the Health Services."
I suggest to your Lordships that the foundation of a Ministry of Health would be a more fitting and a more enduring memorial to the memory of that great man than all the perorations that have ever been uttered inside the doors of Westminster Palace.
Then we have the Bishop of Birmingham, the President of the Birth-rate Commission which is now sitting. Resolutions have been passed by all enlightened voluntary bodies who are entitled to have a say in this matter; and a large and influential memorial is about to be presented—or, I think, has just been presented—to the Prime Minister on this extremely important subject. It is important because we have to face among other things the loss of the actual fathers

929
of the race in the war; many of our best men who should be the healthy fathers of the next generation have sacrificed their lives. Owing to the war we have an actual loss of babies. Sir Bernard Mallet, the Registrar-General, said at the Royal Institute of Public Health that, but for the war, there would probably have been 650,000 more babies born in England and Wales since 1914 than have been born. We have to face the lowest birth rate on record. We have to face the fact that venereal disease and tuberculosis are greatly on the increase. And in this regard I should very much like to know what has happened to the Joint Committee that was promised not long ago to sit on those two Bills with regard to venereal disease. Has that Committee gone the same way as other things? But that is not really in the Ministry of Health, though it is germane to what I was saying, and if I can get an answer about that presently it might be well.
We have also to face the fact that 1,000,000 children in our elementary schools are either physically or mentally defective, so that we need not be surprised that the lists of Grade III men fill up remarkably well. Not only that, but the present and the future fathers of the race, owing to our having lost so many of the best of our manhood, will not be recruited as heretofore from the strongest. That is why their children will want additional care. Further, we have to face diseases that are brought home, and will be brought home, from the war—such as malaria, trench fever, and dysentery. We have the admitted neglect of maternity; and I submit to your Lordships that we have, in fact, an overwhelming case for constituting a Ministry to deal with the public health.
Now, how is this being dealt with at the present time? What I am going to say is illustrative of some of the methods we employ in this country. We have now, dealing with the public health, the Local Government Board (including the Registrar-General's department), the National Health Insurance Commission, the Board of Education, two Departments of the Home Office, a Department of the Privy Council dealing with midwives—though I should be glad if the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council could tell us what the relationship between these two classes of the community is; at present it is one of the anomalies of the Constitution which
930
has not been explained—the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Pensions, the Ministry of Munitions, the Ministry of Food, the Ministry of Reconstruction, the Railway Traffic Control Board, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Air Council, the Colonial Office, the Indian Office, the Foreign Office, and the Board of Agriculture, which is responsible for pure milk, and therefore is acutely connected with the spread of tuberculosis. In addition to all those Departments, we have 1,800 sanitary authorities, 630 boards of guardians, 238 local insurance committees, 318 education authorities, and 320 new pensions committees. All these bodies deal either directly or indirectly—and for the most part independently of each other, therefore having no common or concerted action and no clearly defined object—with the health of the country.
There is no safeguard in this extraordinary system against overlapping, and, what is still worse, there is no safeguard against overlooking which is much more important. Yon may have what you consider to be a perfectly water-tight system, but if you have a great many of these bodies operating in the same area the very thing you want to check may easily slip between the crevices. All these bodies are conducting their own investigations on their own account. It is, of course, no very wide exaggeration to say that a representative from each of these bodies might conceivably be in the same house looking at different members of the same family at the same moment. In the old days Lord Chatham used to say—and this quotation has been given to the House, I believe, by Lord Rosebery— that "however the storm, or the rain, or the wind, may enter the cottage of a poor man; the King of England could not enter; all the forces of the Crown dare not cross the threshold of that ruined tenement." But we heard the other day in evidence before the Birthrate Commission that at least eleven forces of the Crown had entered the tenement of one man in order to inspect him and his family from various points of view.
These are not highly coloured exaggerations which I have brought in for the purpose of giving point to what I have to say. I will corroborate my statements by reading one or two sentences from the Report of the Local Government Committee of the Ministry of Reconstruction, a very powerful

931
Government Committee—which reported not very long ago—
"There are at this moment a large number of different bodies giving various forms of public assistance out of rates and taxes, with very inexact delimitation of the persons eligible. Many of these bodies deal on different lines, and for different reasons, with members of the same family. There are, for instance, seven different public authorities giving money in the home, leaving out of account the exceptional cases of money payments by the education and health authorities. All these are found contributing towards maintenance in various forms, institutional or other. At least six are providing various forms of medical treatment. Three are giving educational training of one sort or another. The able-bodied unemployed may be subsidised by five of them. These public bodies, many of them extending over different areas, have, with a few exceptions, no common system of registration of cases; so that even the names of persons receiving assistance from one or more of the bodies may be unknown to some other body which may be considering their case. This absence of common knowledge results in much overlapping, and also in occasional failure to detect cases of need. Not only are there many public authorities dispensing assistance out of the rates and taxes, but new ones are frequently being improvised to meet emergencies. The extent, variety, and overlapping of the activities of these various bodies cannot adequately be set out, but there may be, often with little co-ordination between them, dealing with:—infants and maternity, five different bodies; with children of school age, three different bodies; with persons of unsound mind or mentally defective, six different bodies; with sick persons, four different bodies; with the aged, three different bodies; and with the able-bodied, not fewer than five different bodies."
In the face of all this, my Lords, he would be a very brave man who tried to disentangle it, but a still braver one who would agree in Parliament to let things remain where they are at the present moment.
Now we have brought to bear upon this question two different frames of mind. We have that frame of mind which says, "Oh! we don't want to have anything to do with this at all. We have too many Ministries already"; and then you have the frame of mind which will agree that the matter is urgent but wishes the treatment of it to be postponed till after the war. I would say to that noble Lord, or to that member of the public, who thinks the argument that there are too many Ministries already is sufficient to dispose of this great subject, that he is bringing forward a consideration which is not worthy of the issues that are at stake. The second answer to him is that it is not proposed to create a new Ministry at all, and I shall show your Lordships in a moment that we do not propose to create a new Ministry but are actually
932
trying to save an existing Ministry. Even it we had to create a new Ministry I see no reason why it should not be done; the case is sufficiently urgent to warrant it. Because since the war we have created a great many new Ministries and left out the most important one of all is no excuse for not appointing it at the present moment; and those people in the country who are anxious to see a Ministry of Health established, and who intend to see it established, are not going to be put off by arguments of this kind, and will not be put off by the plea of expense, because they believe, and they believe with great truth, that the expenditure of lives is the greatest extravagance of which a nation can possibly be capable, and that to create a Ministry of Health, so far from being an extravagance, will be national salvage all round. It will be national salvage of officials, national salvage of money, and national salvage of lives, and it will be the most important part of construction and reconstruction that we can possibly imagine. Nor, my Lords, are we going to be put off by allowing children to be thrown to the wolves in the shape of the Maternity Bill. Your Lordships will shortly, I believe, be asked to discuss a Maternity Bill which has been passed at the other end of the passage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: To-morrow.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: If anybody tells your Lordships that it is a substitute for all this, do not believe it; it is nothing of the kind.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Nobody said so.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: It is the frame of mind which those responsible for the Bill are trying to create.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Nobody said so.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I am very glad to hear it. May I produce, my Lords, one or two reasons why I am saying this? This Maternity Bill is all very well in its own way, and I shall do everything I can to assist in passing it into law and to make it a success. I am not going to be guilty of the same thing which I understand is going on downstairs, in the shape of Departmental jealousy. But the Maternity Bill does not deal with the three great killing agencies of the human race. It does not deal with tuberculosis, venereal

933
disease, and alcoholism, and although it is a useful measure it touches only a small part of the great problem of health.
Now, we can do all that is necessary without creating a new Ministry. We shall save a Ministry, as I ventured to say just now, and if it is a matter of saving a Ministry, there are a certain number of old-fashioned and archaiac Ministries which are approaching a period of senile decay or even obsolescence; and in the very able book written by Mr. Henry Higgs, who was appointed by the Government to unravel the working of the Civil Service in South Africa and Egypt, it is stated that a Minister without a Portfolio is a greater expense than a Portfolio without a Minister. Those who have studied the subject advise that what should be done is to bring together the Insurance Commission and the Local Government Board. I should like to say that, I, for one, sincerely hope that the new Ministry of Health will not confine itself to the orbit which now controls both these Ministries. The idea of merging the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commission is already agreed in principle, but it is being delayed, as I understand, either because the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commission are fighting with one another or jealous of one another or are not on sufficient terms to live in the same house. I understand that a good deal of difficulty arises over the Poor Law, and that the position of the Poor Law is being exploited, either honestly or dishonestly, by Departmental interests as an excuse for holding up the Ministry of Health.
All insurance interests, whether industrial, friendly, or approved, naturally object to being mixed up with the Poor Law. That is intelligible. But the attitude of the Local Government Board towards it is a little more difficult to fathom. I wonder if the Local Government Board hope that the Poor Law will survive, and will cling to the Poor Law; or is it suggested that they are afraid to let any one into their house until the poor relation has been despatched and got rid of? Is that the reason? Whatever the reasons may be, the public have a right to know what it is that is hanging up this very vital reform. I say that the first step is to merge the Local Government Board and the Insurance Commission, because practically all the functions of the Local Government Board are already health functions. I know
934
there are other functions—non-health functions—which could be properly allocated to other Departments, but the bulk of the Poor Law, concerned as it is with infirmity, sickness and infancy, performs in elect a health function. If it is necessary to get rid of the non-health functions of the Poor Law, the Poor Law schools, for instance, could be handed over to the local education authorities and the Board of Education, while unemployment could be transferred to the Ministry of Labour. But it does seem that the break-up of the Poor Law is a condition precedent to a Ministry of Health.
Those who are interested in the matter hope most earnestly, and we urge upon the Government, that they will introduce a Bill at an early date, and either follow it or accompany it, if they like, by the announcement that their policy will be that which has long been arrived at by those who are qualified to judge in this matter—that their policy will be to follow it by the break-up of the Poor Law. I do not know whether this occasions noble Lords opposite any great surprise, but I should have thought that they were sufficiently hardened not to mind announcing any number of policies, in view of the fact that they have already announced that they can pass Home Rule for Ireland and enforce Conscription at the same time, and have abandoned the intention. At any rate, there will be no difficulty in announcing that you are going to do away with the Poor Law. You cannot object to that. Let us make a beginning at any rate, and let the Ministry of Health, at its inception, be a central authority to disentangle, co-ordinate, superintend, and make collective and coherent all investigation that is now being carried on by a hundred and one different Departments. Let it stand to the other Departments of the country with regard to health in the same relation as, say, the Board of Works stands to other Departments in relation to architecture, or the Stationery Department stands to other Departments in the matter of buying their paper and, I believe, their furniture at a cheap and uniform rate.
In establishing this Ministry (it is rather early, perhaps, to talk about what it should do until we have seen the Bill) it is not too much to hope that we shall be able to keep in view the following principles—that we shall place science in its proper position, and that, as Sir Bertrand Dawson said in his extremely able letter in the British

935
Medical Journal, the skilled shall no longer be under the control of the unskilled; and that the proper people to decide about doctoring are the doctors. It is not necessary in this regard—we are not asking—that the new Minister of Health should be a doctor, but it does seem essential that the permanent Under-Secretary should be a medical man, and that there should be somebody responsible of technical training who has direct access to his chief. It is to be hoped also that the new Ministry, as soon as it is formed, will call to its counsels representatives of all medicines, and will link up both the preventive and curative sides. People talk a great deal now about preventive medicine on the one hand and curative medicine on the other. It is not out of place to remark here that, with regard to all infectious and contagious diseases, the curative side of medicine becomes preventive, inasmuch as you prevent other people catching the disease by curing the sufferers, and the two branches of medicine become practically indistinguishable.
There are other questions which it will be appropriate for the new Minister to examine as soon as he is appointed. They are rather important questions, about which the nation would like to know, and Parliament ought to know, the answer. How much do we spend on public health? I do not suppose anybody knows. By what Departments is it spent? How much is spent by each Department? What does each Department regard as its proper functions in the matter of health? How far do we get value for the money that we spend? How far do various bodies—this is a very important question—concerned in health compete with one another in administering health functions? Surely all this is of first-class importance, and it is worth doing and it is worth doing now. The noble Earl the Leader of the House, Lord Curzon, I suppose admits the urgency of it. At any rate, he says that the postponement is due to nothing else except acute and deep-seated difference between the various Departments concerned. This is not a very satisfactory state of things. It means either that the Government is not master in its own house—that the Government cannot manage its own servants—or else that it is taking advantage of a squabble that is going on downstairs in order to postpone the introduction of the Ministry of Health. I believe that the
936
general public will not stand this sort of thing very much longer, but will want to know what this quarrel is about, and how soon the Government is going to take steps to put it right. I am sanguine enough to believe that many of your Lordships will agree with me as to the urgency of dealing with the health of the nation by at least forming a Ministry of Health and doing it at the earliest possible date.
Several NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
LORD WILLOUGHBY DE BROKE: I have spoken to some noble Lords and to friends outside the House, and I find a disposition to admit the force of all this, but, at the same time, to say "You had better do it after the war." I am getting a little tired of the phrase "after the war." I believe that to say you will do a thing after the war—the noble Viscount who is going to follow will, perhaps, tell me whether my law is right—means, in the opinion of lawyers, to "void for perpetuity," or something near it. Nobody can tell how long the war is likely to last. The war may last for a very great number of years. And there is this point. Unless you set up a Ministry of Health and do every single thing in your power to arrest the consequences of the war on the public health, you are doing the very best thing you can to prolong the war.
This is a war measure. It is an urgent war measure, and every day that it is postponed we take the responsibility of postponing the conclusion of hostilities. No one knows when the war will be over. Then people say that you are not to have any fresh legislation during the war. That is really not bad, considering that just before your Lordships allowed me to get up to speak a gentleman came from the end of the passage and said that the Education Bill had just passed the House of Commons, and that we have been told by the noble Earl, Lord Curzon, that we are going to sit up all night for some weeks to come in order to give consideration to the Education Bill. Let me say this about the Education Bill. If you have time to pass an Education Bill you can equally make time to pass a Health Bill, and it is no good whatever passing an Education Bill and deciding how you are going to educate your children until you have taken measures to ensure that there will be a proper supply of children to educate.

937
To pass an Education Bill before a Health Bill is to put the cart before the horse.
I believe, with all my heart, that this matter is urgent. Anybody who does not think it is urgent had better read the Casualty Lists which appear every morning in the Press, and he will see that it is becoming very urgent. We may wait in this matter, but nature is not going to wait, and we should not be doing our duty to the nation if we did not take this matter in hand at the earliest possible moment. I am extremely anxious, and I entreat your Lordships to pass this Resolution, or at any rate a Resolution something like it. I will make an offer to the noble Lord who is going to answer for the Government. I will modify the Resolution if necessary, and make it as wide as possible, short of admitting that this reform can be held up until after the war is over.
We may be told by the Government that they are going to produce their Bill. If they are going to produce their Bill they cannot possibly have any objection to the Resolution. If they do not intend to produce a Bill, then we must take the only means we can to bring pressure on them by passing a Resolution urging them to produce a Bill at the earliest possible moment. I do not want to embarrass the Government, but they are like all other Governments. They have acquired a knack of yielding at the proper moment to pressure. They are like a certain type of horse that I know very well, and have ridden a good many times. They are a very good type, whose principal characteristics are that they are not overburdened with courage; they have an excellent notion how to take care of themselves, have unlimited staying power, and every now and then surprise themselves and their friends by winning a race, provided you kick and cuff them every yard of the way. That does not apply particularly to this Government, and I hope noble Lords opposite will understand that I say this in no offensive sense, but it is a characteristic that long tenure of the Front Bench is bound to develop. I hope your Lordships will affirm the principle of a Ministry of Health, which has been to long neglected.
I should like it to be clearly understood that those who wish to promote a Ministry of Health have no idea, as some people seem to fear, of nationalising either the medical service of the country or the hospitals. Our hospitals are one of the
938
finest monuments of this country. What we would like to do is not to nationalise our hospitals, but, if possible, to make them superfluous. We wish also to place the medical profession on a higher level than it occupies at the present moment; to place it on the same sort of level which it occupies in the United States. In short, my Lords, I hope I shall not be out of place if I implore you to pass this Resolution. Lord Beaconsfield really did say this, and not Mr. Gladstone—" I beg your Lordships, on this occasion, to be on the side of the angels." We are not threatening any interest; we are not attacking anything at all except disease. I honestly believe, from many communications I have received from outside, that the general public look to this House to stimulate the formation of a Ministry of Health, and to announce that the welfare and health of the race is the primary function of Government.
Moved to resolve, That this House urges His Majesty's Government to introduce at an early date a Bill to constitute a Ministry of Health.—(Lord Willoughby de Broke.)
VISCOUNT HALDANE: My Lords, I rise to second the Motion, and I shall be able to do so very briefly because I do not wish to go over the ground which the noble Lord has covered. One thing, however, I wish to emphasise. I think this is a war measure, and a very urgent war measure. The noble Lord quoted statistics given by Sir Bernard Mallet, the Registrar-General, as to the loss of births since the commencement of the war, but these statistics do not merely represent the peril to which we are exposed—a peril which arises not out of the war but which existed before it, and which constitutes a serious danger. After the war we shall have to do our utmost to build up our population, and we require, as early as possible, to take the steps requisite for that purpose.
I do not think it is generally realised that by far the greatest loss in population is not post-natal, but ante-natal. Statistics show that the number of children who ought to be born into the world and who are not, by reason of various diseases, is enormous, and it is due to the three causes which the noble Lord mentioned—alcoholism, venereal disease, and phthisis. These are subjects which require the most careful scientific investigation. To pass a Maternity Bill is to scratch on the surface, and to try and solve questions which the Motion raises by means of a Maternity Bill is, I

939
assure the Government, to bring down presently ridicule on their own heads. They do not realise the depth of feeling which has been awakened on this question, and the immense importance it presents to the nation, and to try to deal with it by any method other than one which will go to the root of the whole matter and provide a system which will afford us some redress from what we are suffering as a people, is only to bring down very hostile criticism indeed upon their heads.
This brings me to what I want to say as to what is necessary in a measure of this kind. There are three things which have to be seen to—population; the prevention of disease generally (which is a very wide thing); and also what the noble Lord alluded to, the training of health officers. I think this is a very wide subject indeed, and one beyond the scope of any Department. They must come to some extent, and to a very important extent, within the scope of a Public Health Ministry, and to suppose that the Local Government Board, as at present constituted, could even approach such a problem is simply to show that you do not know what you are talking about.
The question of medical education in this country is in urgent need of consideration. We have not only fallen behind the United States in many particulars, but we peculiarly require the systematic training of a body of health officers who can discharge the necessary work we have to do. It is not merely the question of the medical men; it is also the question of the training of nurses, of inspectors, and of a variety of people, who will have to deal with the carrying out of a practical measure of this kind. It will require the best thought of the Universities, and the best thought of the medical profession to be brought to bear on it, and it will require the sympathy and stimulation of a great Government Department which really is furnished with the knowledge that this great problem requires. This means that before you can make progress you must know what it is that you have to do. You must have your principles clear; and fortunately as regards this Bill, I think that the principle has become very fairly clear.
The noble Lord referred to the very valuable Report with which I also have provided myself—the Report of the Local
940
Government Committee on the Transfer of the Functions of Poor Law Authorities in England and Wales, a Report which goes far beyond that mere subject, for it dealt with the general question of the co-ordination of public assistance which is germane to the Poor Law. That was a very striking Committee. It included Lord George Hamilton and Mrs. Sydney Webb, the rival antagonists of the two Reports, Majority and Minority, of the Poor Law Commission, and it had the happy result of a complete agreement being reached between those representing the two views upon Poor Law reconstruction. It was reached in this way, and it has the most direct bearing on the subject of which the noble Lord opposite is going to speak. It is quite clear, and if proof were wanted of it this Report makes it clear, that the only way of dealing with the public health of this country is by devolution—devolution under the direction of a highly competent Minister with a Department from which he can supervise it.
To talk of local government is to use an expression which was admirable in the old days when we had no local government properly so-called, in the times when the Poor Law was first the subject of attention by statesmen, and when, very slowly, laws relating to sanitation and other subjects were being evolved. To-day we have got far beyond the stage of treating these things by the Local Government Board. They are too many and too varied to be handled by any one Minister except in a Lilliputian fashion. What is recommended on all hands, and what is recommended by this Report—and I think that nobody has dissented from that view, and that countenance has been given to it by some members of the Government—is that you should take the method of devolution, and in time that you should distinguish between the forms of public assistance and the functions which you wish to evolve.
Take, for example, what we have to-day. The noble Lord truly said, quoting the Report, that there are no less than six authorities who administer the public health of the nation. I will not go over them again, because we know them. The boards of guardians do a good deal. It is very simple to split up the public assistance which you give into its various forms, and to take public health and treat that as one of the forms. Then you will have the thing mapped out for you. You have an

941
Education Department which does not administer education at Whitehall. It is a common delusion that it does. Education is administered, is carried out and worked, by the 390 local education authorities which Whitehall superintends. And so it ought to be with the Public Health Ministry, which ought to be exactly in the position of the Board of Education, and which ought to work through the borough and county councils.
If this analogy were followed, what would be the result? Every borough council, every county council, would have its health committee as it has its education committee; that is a statutory committee on which experts should be co-opted—as has been done with such good results in the case of education—and you would then devolve the whole of public health assistance to that committee, working of course under the responsibility of the council to which it belonged. In the same way, you would take the provision of employment for able-bodied and all questions connected with out-relief and so on, and you would hand those over to a statutory committee of the county council, and so you would break up the bundle of special forms of public assistance which are to-day all included under the general name of "local government" without rhyme and without reason.
What would be the effect of this? You would get devolution, and you would look to your local parliaments, your county and borough councils, to do the work that you would like them to do through the medium of these statutory committees. You would gain, I think, a great advantage, because these local bodies have become enormously important, and you would relieve Parliament of an immense deal of work which it has at the present time to do. What is the use of our considering quite minor measures connected with public health? Everybody approaches them from a different point of view. There is no unity, no conception, no scientific view of the nature of the services, and the result is that a great deal of our time is consumed uselessly, and a great deal of legislation is undertaken which never ought to come before Parliament at all. I believe that if we were in earnest about this notion of devolving the responsibility to local authorities with the assistance of expert statutory committees, such as the education system provides, we should have gone a long way towards solving one of the
942
most pressing features of the problem of Home Rule.
This question of devolution is, therefore, a big one. If that be so, however far it goes and however much further you can extend the problem of devolution, what is the effect upon the existing state of things? The effect is this. The Local Government Board will become what it ought to be primarily—the Ministry of Public Health. It would be only secondarily a Ministry of Local Government, because there would be little local government to look after. Certain questions in connection with the able-bodied and other forms of public assistance would remain, but they are trifles compared to those referred to by my noble and gallant friend, and they are subjects which would take up only secondarily the attention of the Local Government Board.
There are other services performed by the Local Government Board which I think would be better performed by other Departments to which they are more germane. The result would be that you would have a Ministry of Public Health, and such residue of local government as remained after you had broken up the fasciculus of special service and devolved the administration of that to the local bodies concerned. I can honestly say that I cannot think of any measure which, if passed speedily and put vigorously into operation under a really sympathetic man, would do more completely to change for the better the state of things in this country and bring people to realise not only that the remedy for their condition was in their own hands, but that the nature of that remedy had been pointed out to them, and that they had the wise and benign supervision of a Ministry of Public Health, comprising within itself the best expert knowledge that the country could command for the purpose of guiding the local authorities in the very important duties which they would have to discharge. I beg to second the Motion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I have no wish to take up any of your Lordships' time; indeed, it would be difficult, on what is a comparatively restricted field, to add to what has been said by the noble Lord who moved this Resolution and by the noble Viscount who has just seconded it, but I should be very sorry if before the noble Lord replies on behalf of the Government—I hope

943
in a favourable sense—no voice were raised from the Episcopal members on this subject to support the Motion. Naturally the subject is one which continually, day by day, concerns those with whom I and other Bishops have to work in every part of the country.
The war has brought indeed many calamities, but it has brought this great blessing—that it has, in a manner which we have not known in the life of this country before, aroused and directed public opinion in regard to the vitally important question of public health. I do not think there ever has been a time when a larger number of able and thoughtful people have been deeply concerned with this problem and when there has been aroused in every part of the country a more convinced, united, and determined public opinion. But this quickened public opinion has discovered two things. One is the unity of health problems. There is scarcely one which can be really considered apart from the other. The noble Lord has given many instances. For example, you cannot make any real distinction between the medical treatment which should be given to a mother in the vitally important days, not only of birth, but before and after birth, and the provision of satisfactory nourishment both for the mother and the child. You cannot isolate the efforts made to promote the health of the children in our elementary schools and the sanitary conditions of their homes and the facilities which are open to the mothers for obtaining proper nourishment for their children. You cannot separate—that is a vast and most interesting matter to which the noble Viscount has only just referred—you can less and less separate all that is meant by the prevention and all that is meant by the cure of disease. You cannot possibly separate the schemes, which I hope will be more abundant and more intelligent after the war than they were before, for the housing of the people from the most complicated questions of sanitation and public health generally. And, above all, you cannot possibly separate research in these matters from administration.
Wherever you turn you find the same conclusions, that health problems are fundamental ones and must be thought out and administered in unison. That is what public opinion has everywhere come to see with increasing clearness and force. At the same time the second thing it has come to realise, with this unity of the problem,
944
is the extraordinary diversity of administration on a question which, more and more, as people come to see it, depends on unity of treatment. There is what, to the outsider, seems a most inextricable confusion and overlapping of administrative bodies. What those who realise the necessary unity of the problem want to know is, What is it that stands in the way of bringing all these operations which closely concern public health under the one Ministry? Is it a difficulty of principle? I cannot see where such a difficulty of principle can arise. Is it a difficulty of administration? Then surely it is one which ought to be at once set right. I agree with every word that the noble Lord said about the urgency of the problem. In the conduct of the war it has been found necessary to create new Ministries. It seems to me that even during the war it ought to be possible, not, as the noble Lord has pointed out, to create a new Ministry, but to correlate existing Ministries and put this matter under unity of control, which is the only way of meeting the unity of the problem itself.
I feel sure the noble Lord will not think that this is a problem which can be safely entrusted to the vague days after the war. There is not one of us who knows what the problems will be when that occurs. We may be faced with difficulties which will tax to the uttermost the thoughts and energies of the whole people. Moreover, as I think the noble Lord has himself pointed out, this is a matter that directly concerns war conditions. It is not a matter that one wishes to speak of in any detail or at any length, but it must be obvious that questions gravely affecting public health will immediately arise in proportion as the Army begins to be demobilised, and we ought to be ready. Moreover the question of raising up a population to meet the terrible depletion which has occurred in the ranks of the citizens of the country is not one that can be postponed for a single day. It has an urgency which arises out of the very conditions of the war.
It is no good attempting to bring in piecemeal legislation on these questions until a united Ministry has been created, because there is always the difficulty—either you postpone that legislation until questions of administration are more satisfactory, or you bring in a measure and entrust it to some branch of administration which admittedly is not satisfactory and which may in a very short time be removed.

945
Just, therefore, at a time when measures affecting the public health are so necessary those who are concerned in them are perplexed and paralysed by this apparently unintelligible and inextricable variety of administration. I am sure that there is a larger force of public opinion than is, perhaps, realised pressing at this moment to know precisely why it is that this Ministry, so long promised, has been delayed. I am sure, with the noble Lord, that people will not be satisfied with the answer that the reason really is departmental difficulty. These are things that a strong Government exists to overcome.
I associate myself with the appeal that has been made to-day by the noble Lords who have just spoken that at any rate a beginning shall be made in the direction of making the administration of public health as united as the problem with which it has to deal. I think that we must look to the Government to show that it is not merely in word but in fact the case that we are not less concerned with measures which will assist in winning the war than we are with measures which may bring about that better order of our national life without which in many ways the war will have been waged in vain.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, since I came into contact with the very numerous bodies which are dealing with public health in one way or another I could only come to the conclusion that the confusion was perfectly appalling, and I most cordially agree with the noble Lord that we must have a Ministry of Health as soon as it is possible to set one up. But I think that some of the advocates of a Ministry of Health have not quite clearly thought out all the difficulties, and those of us who have listened to the speech of the noble and learned Viscount, which was full of constructive proposals, will, understand how very much has to be done before a Ministry of Health can be made as effective as it should be. The Local Government Board was only established in 1871, and though it has still imperfect powers I think it has accomplished a considerable amount of excellent work, which is too little realised. But all the most important developments in the direction on public health, however they are initiated, must depend for their administration and for their executive power upon the local authorities, as the noble and learned Viscount has said. That is neces-
946
sary, and it should always be necessary; therefore the efficiency of the local government system will really be a test of the efficiency of the health arrangements which we all hope to see set up.
Among many developments in late years I should like to mention the setting up of venereal disease clinics, fever and small-pox hospitals, clinics for expectant mothers, asylums for insane and feeble-minded, and tuberculosis hospitals and sanatoria. To give some little idea of how one part of the work is done, I may say that the public health authorities provide 170,000 beds, the Poor Law guardians 96,000 beds, and the voluntary hospitals somewhere about 45,000 beds. I think it may be fairly said that under the œgis of the Local Government Board the average of life has been prolonged, that there has been a diminution of nearly one-third in the death rate, and that there has been a considerable reduction in the mortality among infants, though that is not nearly so great as would be possible with better arrangements. Meanwhile the National Insurance system was set up. That was a bad copy of the German system, and was never properly thought out. It seems to me to be a most striking instance and warning of the evils of too hurried legislation. I believe that the principle of that Act is really wrong. It picked out about one-third of the population for medical assistance but left out their families, and it also neglected other people equally deserving, and, in some cases, equally poor. That scheme, I believe, is now practically bankrupt for women, and it would be bankrupt for men if full medical assistance could be given, as it is not given now. That whole system must be transferred bodily to the Ministry of Health. This, the noble Lord said, was one of the first steps, and I entirely agree with him. But probably the best course would be to abandon medical benefit altogether and to provide medical assistance on general lines for the insured persons, for their families, and for all other classes who are equally poor and in equal need of it. That is a great principle, which will have to be decided by somebody, and which will have to be approved by Parliament.
Bu there is another great difficulty which arises from the fact, as the noble and learned Viscount has stated, that the important proposals of the Poor Law Commission have not been carried out. It would have made an immense difference

947
and facilitated the measures for which we wish, if those proposals had been carried out. Then there is the whole question of the work of the Poor Law guardians. Is this to be transferred to the public health authorities or not? That is a question of principle, and a question which must be decided before we know where we are with regard to the Ministry of Health.
So far as I can see a Ministry of Health can only be really effective on certain conditions. It must, as I have said, absorb the whole work of the National Insurance Commission; and all the chief medical state services must, I believe, be brought under one control. A new Ministry of Health must exercise power over the local authorities, to watch over them, to guide them, and to keep them up to the mark; but they must always be administrating agencies. There must be central authority, and each area must also be under one central authority. All this means great changes and reforms in our whole system of local government, as the noble and learned Viscount has pointed out. That system has been described not quite unjustly as "a crazy patchwork," and one of the first things to do is to reorganise that system in order that it may perform these duties and the much larger duties in relation to national health which are so urgently needed. But even then I am doubtful whether all health work can be brought under the Ministry. The health of school children must be to a great extent under the administration of the education authorities; the health of seamen and the sanitary conditions on board ship, and so on, can hardly be taken away altogether from the Board of Trade; while factory and mining laws may to some extent still have to be administered under the Home Office. But, of course, in an ideal system all these other bodies dealing with those aspects of the question would have to be brought into the closest touch with the Ministry of Health, which should be the real inspiring source of knowledge, and science in its best form.
I hope I have said enough to show that this question is a most complicated one. I do not think that we have enough guidance at present to enable us to reach a sound conclusion. We have made many mistakes in the past, and it is most important that we should not repeat them. In ordinary times, of course, a Royal Commission would
948
be set up at once to say exactly what should be done, what duties the new Ministry should perform, and how it should be organised. But we cannot do that now. Yet I believe that a well-selected body of only three thoroughly competent people, with all the mass of information they have at their disposal, could in three mouths lay down the lines of a really constructive policy for administering national health under a single Ministry, and that a Bill might then be drafted and passed during the next session. We have had, especially lately, far too much hurried legislation, and I am certain that out of that legislation much trouble will arise in the future. While I strongly support the Resolution of the noble Lord, I feel that we must not leave this matter to be fought out and wrangled out between Departments behind the scene. That is not the way to get at the best solution. Therefore I would beg of the Government to consider the suggestion I have made, and to make sure of their ground before they are committed to what must be an exceedingly complicated and at the same time a most important Bill.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I will do my best to try and answer, or to deal in some form with the very complicated matters that have been fully discussed this afternoon. The whole object of this movement, I understand, is to urge the Government to bring in legislation on the subject at an early date. The point is rather what should be the precise nature of that particular legislation; and I could not help thinking, while I was listening to the very important and informed speeches which have been made this afternoon, how difficult it would be to construct any Bill on those speeches, because on important points they differed so profoundly among themselves. I was rather grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, because he to some extent lightened my task by dwelling briefly on the very profound differences and on the difficulties in the way; and I think he realised that to deal with this matter immediately by a three-clause Bill—as one of its enthusiastic advocates suggested in the other House—would really be doing great injustice to the complexity of the matters which we have to solve.
My noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke introduced this subject in an eloquent and figurative speech, supported by quotations from Solomon and from Lord Beaconsfield. I should like if I may, before I deal with the large matters that

949
have been raised, to say a few words on some specific points on which the noble Lord challenged me for an answer. The first point I noted was with reference to the Joint Committee. I have to inform the noble Lord that this Joint Committee has now been set up. That, I think, will satisfy my noble friend so far. The next point was the question of the Maternity Bill, the Second Reading of which I hope to have the honour of proposing to-morrow to your Lordships. I understand that my noble friend is a supporter of that measure. I was rather sorry, if I may say so, that my noble friend, and, I think, the noble and learned Viscount opposite, re-introduced what I may call the old story, that anyone in authority had suggested that this particular Bill was regarded as a substitute for this great question of co-ordinating all the health powers in a central authority. I cannot conceive how that idea can seriously have arisen, because the two subjects are quite apart. The matter with which we are dealing this afternoon is the question of a central authority and the co-ordination of powers, many of which are now exercised by different authorities. I do not want to anticipate the Bill of to-morrow, but that Bill is for extending powers, very valuable and far-reaching powers as they are, to the local authorities; and I rather regret that my two noble friends should have alluded in that way to this Bill, because the President of the Local Government Board, who is responsible for the Bill, has emphatically stated in another place, and stated more than once, that he certainly did not regard the Maternity Bill as any substitute for, or as related to, the other very much larger question we are discussing this afternoon. Let me, therefore, dismiss that matter.
There is one more observation which I would like to make to my noble friend. He was, I think, a little ready to deal with Departmental differences, and with what he called Departmental jealousies. I was much refreshed, if I may say so, by the speech of the most rev. Prelate, who dealt not at all with these matters but with the larger question of the co-ordination of powers, because I think it must have been obvious to your Lordships, not only those well informed on these matters but also those who have listened to the discussion this afternoon, that an amount of legitimate difference of opinion is quite possible upon these difficult matters of co-ordination of powers, and the question as to what powers should be centred in one authority and what
950
powers should be left to other authorities. There is clearly room on this matter for much consideration and much thought.
There was one omission, if I may allude to it, in the well informed speech of my noble friend. He was no doubt, in making his speech, convinced that he was addressing an assembly very well informed on all these matters of local administration, because I think that if any stranger had come into this House who was not acquainted with our local administration he would have gained a very false idea of the existing situation from the speech of my noble friend. My noble friend, no doubt for considerations of space, did not dwell upon the vast work of public health which has been carried on by the Local Government Board for the last thirty or forty years. He did not tell your Lordships that the Local Government Board is and has been for years a great health authority. In fact, it is rather difficult in running over the different duties discharged by the Local Government Board to say what duties it does discharge which are not closely connected with health. For instance, the whole of the work done by the Local Government Board under the Public Health Acts, the whole matter of sanitation, the whole matter of the disposal of sewerage, and of administration under the Housing Act, are all matters directly connected with the question of public health. Moreover, take such matters, less sonorous perhaps but most important to the health of the people, as the administration of the Food and Drugs Act, the notification of births, the Contagious Diseases (Animals) Act, and other matters of that kind.
Even then one comes to the whole question of the Poor Law. I think possibly I misunderstood the first observation which fell from the noble Viscount opposite, because I thought at first he was criticising the administration by the local authorities; but then I understood that he really wanted to hand over the whole public assistance to the local authorities. Dealing with the Poor Law as it is, there is a vast amount of public health connected with the Poor Law, and the question which I should rather like to have put to my noble friend opposite is, What division is he going to make between the health administration of the Poor Law and the rest of the administration of the Poor Law? He waves his hand. I do not know whether it is a very significant

951
gesture or not, but is he going to divide these two functions? Is he going to put on one side perhaps the work in the infirmary and the medical relief, and hand over to the Local Government Board the work in the poorhouse and the administration of Poor Law relief? I do not gather what his proposals are from his speech, but I only suggest that in the administration of the Poor Law itself you have an immense problem even as it is at present, and the division or diversion of some of its functions to a Health Ministry ought to be a matter of careful and very close consideration.
Moreover, I should like to allude to one distinction which I think has been referred to by some of the speakers, as to the growth of opinion on some of these great subjects. The bulk of the work for the last thirty or forty years carried out by the Local Government Board has been on what one may call public health generally—that is to say, it has attacked the question of health in the mass rather than in the individual; rather on the preventive than on the curative side. That situation has been changing, because during the last few years there is no question that great new powers have been exercised of a distinctly curative nature by the Local Government Board in connection with tuberculosis, venereal disease, and matters of that kind; and incidentally I was rather surprised to hear my noble friend allude to the vast increase in these diseases. I have seen no figures, and I do not know whether he has seen any, which establish the truth of his statement. Anyhow, what I want to point out is this, that before the war, and before public opinion had been stimulated as regards the curative treatment of disease by the war and the great losses we have sustained in the war, there was growing up a feeling, which was reflected also in the administration of the Local Government Board and in our legislation, of the necessity not only for dealing with health and disease in the mass but also in the individual as well.
What I should like to try to get clear is this point as regards the setting up of a Ministry of Health. My noble friend dealt rather scornfully with any one who thought that the creation of a new Ministry was a matter to be considered, and therefore I was led, wrongly, I believe, to think that he proposed to set up a definite Ministry of Health under a definite Minister. Undoubtedly one view of this proposal is that
952
there should be a totally new Ministry set up under a separate Minister, to whom all the health duties of the Local Government Board are to be transferred and other duties now discharged by other public authorities. That would leave the Local Government Board as a sort of shell with certain local government duties to discharge, and I suppose certain financial duties as well in connection with loans and matters of that kind. I was rather glad to see from the later portions of the speech of my noble friend that he did not support any view of that kind; and I do not think that view has succeeded in obtaining much support from noble Lords who have spoken to-night. Indeed, I think that would be a deplorable result, because to try and separate local government and the administration of local government from the health question would be, as I think the noble Viscount would say, most deplorable, because his own suggestion for dealing with the matter, so far from diminishing the work of the local government authorities, was that their work should be increased and that more burdens and duties should be put upon them in connection with health and other matters.
If I may be allowed, as an old member of the greatest municipality in this country, and as one, I suppose, who has attended either as a member or as spokesman more deputations to more Ministers than most people, I should say that one would very much regret looking at it from the local authority end, to have a new set of masters or a double set of masters set up to whom one should be responsible and whose criticism one would have to meet. I should like to quote in this connection two resolutions passed by the London County Council in November last on this very subject. These Resolutions were to the effect, firstly, that the functions of a Ministry of Health should not be separated from those of the Department entrusted with the central supervision of local powers, such as those relating to housing, drainage, water supply, and the like, which are closely and essentially connected with the health of the community; and, secondly, that any further powers which may be granted by Parliament with regard to public health should form part of the existing system of local government. I gather that most of those who have spoken are in general agreement that there should be no dissociation, as there really cannot be, between the existing and new health powers

953
and local government; that still the local authority should be used as the great instrument for carrying out these complicated powers and duties.
It then becomes, perhaps, rather a question of whether you keep the Local Government Board anyhow—under another name if you like, as the local governing health authority—as a centre of the powers, and add new powers to it, whether drawn from existing authorities or powers, or newly conferred by Parliament. There, I think, we come into what I may call rather difficult and complicated questions. First of all there is the question of the transfer of the powers, or perhaps the transfer of the whole of the Insurance Commission to, I will not call it the Local Government Board, because there has been a criticism of that name, but we will say the Local Government and Health Board, if my noble friend prefers that. The most rev. Prelate told us that it would really be inexplicable to a New Zealander if he were to examine into the way powers are distributed; he would wonder at there not being greater concentration. The most rev. Prelate knows extremely well how things are done in this country and how these different powers arise, in response to public opinion expressed in particular ways at particular times, and find utterance a legislation passed by Parliament. No doubt times do occur when it may be wise to revise all these powers and their distribution, and to consider whether some greater concentration may not be possible or necessary.
May I say just one word on the question of the Insurance Commission? The noble Lord, Lord Sydenham, referred to it, and he suggested that these powers may be at once handed over. Your Lordships are very well aware that these Insurance Commissioners do much more than merely administer medical relief. They have two sides. They administer a series of benefits—the maternity benefits, the sick benefits, and the breakdown benefit—and they also, through a system of panel doctors, local committees, and approved societies, administer the medical benefits. No doubt these powers may easily be transferred to a new central authority, but then my noble friend Lord Sydenham raised a very interesting point. There is a considerable school of thought in this country which thinks that, up to a certain point at least, medical attendance for the great mass of
954
the population should be free. If this were decided upon, it is quite clear that the insurance side of medical benefits would drop away, and that either the contributions to insurance would be reduced or the other benefits would be enlarged, as no one would then find it necessary to insure for medical benefits when he could get the benefit free under the other arrangement. I only want to cite this for the purpose of pointing out how closely policy is connected with administration, and how, while you may desire to set up your central authority, you must at the same time consider your policy, and not, as I think was suggested, leave your policy entirely to the new body, because on the constitution of that new body your policy must largely depend.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships too long with details, but I am doing this for a special purpose, because I want to give some idea of the complexity of these matters and of the difficulty of dealing with them in a moment by legislation. I have already alluded to the question of the Poor Law—I will say nothing further about that—and to the great difficulty there would be, first of all, in separating the health functions and the administration of the Poor Law from the other functions connected with what is now to be called, I believe, public assistance. Then there are, of course, a great many other powers of a health character which are administered by other authorities. My noble friend, Lord Sydenham, in dealing with the subject, rather indicated that he thought that perhaps some of these powers should be left with the existing authorities. I should like to allude to one of them, which I think may possibly be considered of the nature of a borderline case, which ought certainly to be closely considered. That is the medical side administered by the Board of Education. I do not know, of course, what are the views of my right hon. friend the Minister of Education on this subject, but this is a very specific form of administration which deals with children in the schools, with certain particular illnesses and diseases incident to children of school age. The Board has, through its medical inspection, an enormous advantage in dealing with these children, because it deals with them as special communities in the schools. Moreover, as regards treatment in clinics and so on, and as regards health in schools, light, ventilation, and often such matters as the size of the printing of books—all those matters are

955
really so special to children in schools that it is quite possible that even though you did concentrate in one body all the powers that have been mentioned you might still, I think, require specialists to deal particularly with these problems affecting children in schools. I cite that as an instance of the complexity of the problem and of the necessity of thinking before you say, "Oh! let us give all these particular powers at once to some new authority."
May I allude also to another Department? Possibly your Lordships may forgive me for alluding to it, because as I represent the Department of National Service in this House I feel rather hurt that my noble friend, in enumerating all the authorities that deal with health, should have left out the most important of all, and that is the great system of medical control and organisation which has been set up under National Service. There are now all these great Boards which cover the whole country—there are ten Commissioners and 133 sub-Commissioners—dealing with everyman from eighteen to fifty-one years of age and these Boards have gathered together an amount of knowledge about the health of the community which must be of immense value to whoever deals in the future with questions of public health. These Boards deal with much more, because they not only deal with their proper work of recruiting, for which they were set up, but they examine and keep records of all the men who are sent away from the Army at the discharge centres, and recently they have taken up the work of examining men as regards pensions. So in these three ways, through a network of medical men all over the country, you have set up a system of which, I regret to say, my noble friend seems unacquainted, or I am sure he would have mentioned it as one of the authorities dealing with medical matters. I think, at least, that all the information so gathered will not be valueless when the time comes.
One word, if I may say it, on two other matters which are germane and practical matters, and closely related to this subject. What are you going to do with the Home Office? You might, I suppose, without any great difficulty, take away the administration of the lunatics, and so on, from the Home Office and hand the duty over to the new health authority. I do not know whether the Home Secretary would be ready to do so immediately on his return from
956
Holland or not. Take the other question of the administration of factories and the Factory Acts, a matter far more complicated because, no doubt, a great deal of that administration is connected with health and the prevention of disease. But there are innumerable other matters which are administered under the Home Office. Are you going to hand over all these duties to the new authority' or are you going to separate them? If you separate them, are you going to have double sets of inspectors in the same place—a matter which, in another connection, I have heard criticised in this House. Take the Board of Trade and their action and duties with regard to the health of seamen, and also the arrangements made during last year by the Ministry of Munitions for dealing with the health and food mainly of the women who are working so well in the factories. I think we are bound to come, to some extent, to this result, that health administration is indeed all pervading, and it is so all pervading that it is very difficult to concentrate all these duties under one authority, because that one authority would almost be too vast for the administrative power of any single Minister. Once you have arrived at this conclusion you have to agree that the matter is more difficult and complex than it has been treated in another place, and outside. It is a matter which requires close thought and consideration. I do not say it should be relegated to that vague and dismal period "after the war." That may be too late to deal with these things. No doubt the matter should be dealt with at once.
On the general question I must confess to your Lordships—and it is a confession I ought to have made at the beginning—that I am in somewhat of a difficulty in giving you a precise reply to the Motion. This matter is really now under the very close consideration of a Government Committee. They have been sitting already on several occasions, and sit again to-morrow, and if they had been able to come to a decision before it was my duty to address your Lordships on the Motion to-day my task would have been much easier. I come to the precise nature of the Motion which my noble friend has introduced to the House. A committee of the Cabinet are now considering this question very closely, and they are no doubt considering it with a view to action. The question is what should be our attitude here towards the particular

957
Motion which the noble Lord has introduced. The words of his Motion are—
"That this House urges His Majesty's Government to introduce at an early date a Bill to constitute a Ministry of Health."
I am not quite sure whether it would be constitutionally right for His Majesty's Government to resist "urging" on the part of either House of Parliament. I think it is hardly possible for it to do so, and I do not think it would be right to offer any opposition to any insistance of that kind. I hope my noble friend will realise—he uses the words, "at an early date"—that in view of the considerations with which I have dealt, and the difficulties and complexities of the whole matter dealing with so many Departments, the words "early date" (though I do not wish to push it over to the period I have alluded to) will be given a very large and liberal interpretation. In these circumstances, if my noble friend will accept those assurances, I think I should be justified is not offering any opposition to his Motion.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TERRITORIAL FORCE SECRETARIES AND INCOME TAX.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH had the following Notice on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government for information with respect to the claim of secretaries of Territorial Force Associations for relief under the Finance Act, 1916, on account of the military character of the work they are engaged on; and to ask whether, in view of the facts—

1. That the Commissioners of Inland Revenue insisted upon a "case" being stated for the decision of the Higher Courts;

2. That a revised case was so stated and forwarded to the Solicitor of the Department on 17th April;

3. That letters were subsequently written on 29th April, 6th May, and 24th May, asking if the revised case was approved;

4. That, as no reply to any of these letters was received, a final letter was written on 3th June asking if the appeal was abandoned;

5. That no reply has been vouchsafed to this letter;

it may be assumed from this continued silence that the case has been abandoned.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I do not propose to repeat the arguments that I
958
brought forward when this matter was considered on February 20, but I should like to emphasise the fact that our contention is, that as under Clause 30 of the Finance Act, 1915, certain benefits are contemplated to those engaged in work of a military character, secretaries of Territorial Force Associations are entitled to those benefits. That is our contention.
I understand from the debate which took place that this claim is questioned by the Inland Revenue Department, answered for by the noble Lord opposite. He went on to say that it is not for the War Office to demand Income Tax; that is entirely a matter for the Inland Revenue, and their view is that the duties of secretaries are mainly of a clerical, or secretarial, kind. I venture to suggest that it does not require the King's Bench to tell your Lordships that the work of a secretary is secretarial. What we claim is that the work of the secretaries of Territorial Force Associations is distinctly military in character, and we claim further that it is the War Office which ought to say what is work of a military character. We must bear in mind that the Territorial Force Associations are statutory bodies, set up to give effect to military plans, inaugurated by the military authorities in the War Office for military purposes, and they have to carry them out without any discretion of their own. I am quite sure there is no president, or chairman, of a Territorial Force Association who would not bear me out in saying that without the assistance of these secretaires it would have been impossible for us to do the work we were called upon to do.
Since the debate—I am not going back on the arguments, because they were fully stated on that occasion—what has taken place is this. On February 27 I wrote a letter to Lord Derby, who was then Secretary of State for War, stating distinctly our position. In that letter I emphasised the point that in view of the fact that we, the Council of the Territorial Force Associations, did not consider it fair to put the onus on the shoulder of the individual secretary, we, as a Council, were taking up the question. I gave various reasons, to which I have refereed, and I received subsequently a letter from Lord Derby, written on March 7, in which he proposed a solution of the difficulty. His proposal was that the War Office and the Board of Inland Revenue should draw up a joint case

959
to lay before the Law Officers of the Crown for their decision, as the point at issue was really one of law. We were quite prepared to accept that; but subsequently, on April 8, I received another letter from Lord Derby, in which he pointed out that the Board of Inland Revenue, having considered this proposal, found themselves unable to accept it. Meanwhile a case has actually arisen in connection with the claim of a secretary of a Territorial Force Association for the allowance of the special rate of Income Tax. It will be observed that it was owing to the action of the Board of Inland Revenue that the proposal of Lord Derby, then Secretary of State for War, which we were prepared to accept, was turned down.
I understand that there has been a little misunderstanding about my Question. I gather that they have been looking in the Inland Revenue Offices for letters written by myself. Well, they will not find them, because when you transfer your business into the hands of a solicitor you do not continue to take part in the matter yourself, and the corrrespondence which has taken place, as I think must have been made clear from the terms of my Question, has been between the solicitor of the Council (who was the original solicitor of the individual) and the solicitor of the Board. In view of what has taken place, in view of our debate, and in view of the subsequent letters, it appears to me rather an extraordinary thing that no reply should have been received to any of those letters.
The noble Lord, in the course of the debate to which I have referred, said that the matter would be shortly brought before the King's Bench. That debate took place on February 20; to-day is July 18, and I should like to know what interpretation the noble Lord puts upon the word "shortly." We have had reference in the debate that has just taken place to another expression which means the same thing. My only experience of the word "shortly" in connection with a Government Department was an occasion on which I asked a rather important question, and was told that the matter was "under consideration." I waited six months, and wrote again. I was told the matter was under consideration, and that I might shortly expect an answer. I asked further what interpretation I could put on the word "shortly." I got no answer. But I was able to deduce that with a Government Department
960
"shortly" means anything between eighteen months and two years.
In this matter the actual amount involved is a very small sum. Nevertheless the secretaries of Territorial Associations are not very wealthy men, and it is a question of principle. To them the question is one of considerable moment; therefore I think that, in view of what has taken place, the matter should not be held up by the Inland Revenue themselves, and that we should receive an answer as to the position in which the matter really stands. I am perhaps inclined to be optimistic, and I have assumed in the last line of my Question that silence gives consent. I do not know whether I am too optimistic or not. If silence is not accepted as consent, might I suggest that in any case the Government should secure that this matter shall be decided by the High Court as one of urgency before the Courts rise for the Long Vacation on August 1; or, failing that, will the Government authorise the payment of Income Tax on the scale appropriate to serving officers without prejudice to the further payment if the High Court's decision should rescind that? If the noble Lord can give me an assurance that the matter is really going to be shortly settled it will give considerable satisfaction to those who are interested.
LORD HYLTON: My Lords, the question that the noble Earl has brought before your Lordships this afternoon is one which was raised in this House on February 20 last. I was instructed at that time to inform the noble Earl that the Department concerned hoped that the case would soon be brought before the Law Courts. As events have turned out, it appears that we were rather too sanguine in hoping that the case would be heard as speedily as at the outset we had anticipated. I will not trouble your Lordships this afternoon by going into the question between the noble Earl and the Department which I represent here (debated on a previous occasion) as to whether the matter is one which concerns the War Office or whether it is one for the Inland Revenue. The noble Earl on that occasion contended, as of course he was quite entitled to do, that it was a question which ought to be decided by the War Office. On the other hand the Treasury, of which I am the humble mouthpiece in this House, held the diametrically opposite view, that it was a Treasury question. If, therefore, the noble Earl has any complaint

961
either against Lord Derby or against the present Secretary of State for War, he must address his remonstrances to the present Secretary of State or to my noble friend Lord Stanhope, who, I have no doubt, will give him every assistance they can in the matter. But I have no responsibility for the War Office in this or in any other matter.
The draft case as to whether these officials are or are not entitled to be relieved from Income Tax being deducted from their salary has been the subject of careful consideration both by the solicitor for Colonel Simpson, who I believe is the officer concerning whose salary a test case is being taken, and the solicitors of the Inland Revenue, and this draft case was transmitted, I am informed, to the Clerk of the Commissioners in an approved form on the 11th of this month. The case, I am told, will be brought before the Courts with as little delay as possible, and I hope that my noble friend will be glad to hear that the Crown is willing to bear the costs of the action in the Divisional Court whether the event goes in favour of the Inland Revenue or not. I much regret that delay has taken place in having this case decided. The Treasury are in no way, I believe, responsible for the delay, A legal question is involved, and everybody knows that when lawyers are concerned it is quite impossible, according to the experience of most of us, to got anything speedily settled.
With regard to Question No. 3 of the noble Earl, inquiring about certain letters which were written on April 29, May 6, and May 24, asking if the revised case was approved, I naturally, before coming down to the House, endeavoured to supply myself with as full an answer as I could to the noble Earl, but the Department to which I applied was placed in some dilemma, for it did not appear from the wording of the noble Earl's Question by whom or to whom these letters were written. I wrongly assumed that they had been written by the noble Earl, who was good enough to inform me privately that he had not written them, and I then inquired as to whether letters had been received by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue from Mr. Hunt, who, it appears, is the solicitor of Colonel Simpson. I am told I hat the last letter received by the solicitor to the Inland Revenue from Mr. Hunt was on March 14—that is, prior to the dates mentioned in the noble Earl's Question.
962
The Department has hitherto. I am sorry to say, been unable to discover any trace of the later letters. I am bound to tell the noble Earl it is quite out of my power to give him any promise that the case will be heard and decided in the High Court before it rises for the Long Vacation. I have no power whatever to say when the High Court shall hear or decide any particular case.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: With regard to the statement that the noble Lord has made, I stated very clearly in my second Question that the revised case was forwarded to the Solicitor of the Department on April 17, and I do not understand how the date to which he refers comes in, because the information I have received was most definitely that stated in the Question. I went through the revised case myself before it was forwarded. I went through it in the early part of April, and it was certainly forwarded, as far as I know, on the date given, and these letters were subsequently sent on the dates set out in the Question. I do not understand how they have gone amiss, or that the last letter received was one written some tune in March.
LORD HYLTON: I am afraid I can add nothing more to the answer I have given.
THE EARL OF DARTMOUTH: Then as the noble Lord cannot give any definite answer, I shall assume that I can inform these unfortunate secretaries that they can pay the Income Tax at the lower rate, without question.

THE CASE OF DR. NAIR.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether there is any precedent for debarring an elector of this country who has committed no offence against the law from speaking in public, and whether they will not reconsider their decision prohibiting Dr. Nair from addressing public meetings or writing to the Press.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question that stands in my name is entirely founded on the notice which appeared in The Times on July 8. I may say I have not had any communication whatever, directly or indirectly, with Dr. Nair, whom I have never met in my life. Put quite briefly, what has occurred is that Dr. Nair, who is a very well-known editor in the Madras

963
Presidency in India, many months ago had arranged to come over to this country for private reasons and for medical treatment. He is a very ardent supporter of our system of administration in India, and also, as I understand from writings of his that I have seen, he views with considerable anxiety, if not alarm, the proposals that have just been put before the public, the so-called reforms of our system of administration in India.
According to The Times, when Dr. Nair, arrived in this country, towards the end of June, he was informed that he would not be allowed to address any meeting or to publish his views on these Indian reforms. According to The Times, this was because in April some Indians who strongly favoured Home Rule for India were coining over as delegates to this country to put their views before the public here. They had passports for that purpose, but at the instance of the War Cabinet in this country these passports were cancelled. Among those Indians was Mr. Tilak. In the meanwhile Mr. Tilak who, like his comrades, had been debarred from coming here, had instituted a suit against Sir Valentine Chirol, a well-known writer on Indian affairs, and consequently he has been granted a permit to come and bring his suit against Sir Valentine Chirol. But he equally has been told that he is not to be allowed to indulge in any propaganda on Indian Home Rule.
Dr. Nair's visit to this country was not in any way connected with political propaganda, but certain friends of his apparently had wished him to express his very strong views about the sufficiency of our rule in India and his anxieties concerning these reforms. I can see no justification for putting Mr. Tilak and Dr. Nair on the same plane. Mr. Tilak is well known in India for his pronounced hostility to our rule there; in fact he was described to me to-day by an Indian gentleman as one who is irreconcilable to our rule in India. It is quite true, I saw recently in the Press that he had proposed that if his views on Home Rule were adopted he would collect a great army to support us in this conflict against Germany. Beyond that, I never heard in my life any pretence on the part of Mr. Tilak that he advocated British rule in India in any form. He has been twice convicted for sedition, and sentenced to the Andaman Islands, and it was only on grounds of ill-health that he was not sent there. I have no wish to press my case against Mr. Tilak, but it is very obvious that the Government were afraid of his
964
stirring up the people here and doctrinating them with his views of Home Rule. He was regarded as a source of danger.
The Government of India have information at their command which I have not—I have not read Mr. Tilak's utterances in recent years—and I cannot say whether they were right or wrong in their decisions. But I do maintain that it is most unfortunate that a gentleman like Dr. Nair, a supporter of our rule in India, who has not come here for the express purpose of propaganda, should be debarred from expressing his views, his admiration indeed, of our rule in India. Above all, he is an elector for Edinburgh University. I really do not know under what powers the Government propose to debar him from writing or speaking. I would even say, let us by all means allow both Mr. Tilak and Dr. Nair to speak, so that we may hear freely the views of eminent Indians on these very vast and far-reaching proposals that have just been laid before Parliament. For myself, I would welcome the free ventilation of opinion so that we might see to what extent Parliament is justified in passing these new Indian reforms. I would rather have both sides speaking in this country than that a gentleman like Dr. Nair should be debarred from giving expression to his views.
LORD SYDENHAM: My Lords, may I say a few words in support of the plea of my noble friend? Dr. Nair is a loyal Indian moderate, and he is the leader of the non-Brahmins of Southern India who, as Your Lordships know, are in an enormous majority. When the war broke out he gave up a large practice and went with the Expeditionary Forces to East Africa and to Mesopotamia as a medical officer. He did that at a time when the little Home Rule Party led by Mrs. Besant was taking advantage of our difficulties and trying to raise a ferment throughout India. It is true, as my noble friend has said, that two Home Rule deputations have been stopped, one at Colombo and the other at Gibraltar; but the objects of those deputations have really adequate support in this country already. There are two subsidised papers, a considerable Home Rule organisation, and a large number of very facile writers who sometimes show great economy in the matter of truth. There is also a very active speaker who has been going about the country addressing labour meetings and trying to persuade his audiences that

965
the Brahmins and the lawyers are the only democrats in India. So that the Home Rule movement is very well represented in this country.
Dr. Nair is the champion of the working-classes, whose interests I am bound to say are neglected in the Report of the Secretary of State. He is, as my noble friend has said, a voter for University College, and I think he can fairly claim to be in a somewhat different position from Mr. Tilak or the deputations. Mr. Tilak, I understand, is coming, and it is natural that the Government might feel reluctant to give any privilege to Dr. Nair and not to give it to Mr. Tilak; but I see no reason why Mr. Tilak should not have complete freedom to speak and to write as he likes when he gets here. The kind of attacks that he has been making in India would be exceedingly ineffective here, and it would be very probable that he would be answered.
Now, the Secretary of State has published this great Report and said that it is to be sent out for general discussion. That Report does not inform this country that all moderate opinion has strongly and in some cases passionately criticised what that Report contains. Is it right that a very able Indian moderate should be prevented from giving his views at a time when views are asked for? Sir Satyendra Sinha, who is a high public official of Bengal, has publicly blessed the Report, although, of course, no other official of any Government would be allowed to do so. Then after a decent interval the Maharajah of Patiala, who could not give his opinion directly on any question relating to British India, and who with his brother chiefs would die rather than let the proposals which the Secretary of State has made be applied in his case, expressed general approval of Sir Satyendra Sinha's views. There have been some other attempts for the creation of an atmosphere which are not fair to the opponents of Mrs. Besant in this country; and I hope that the noble Lord will say that this muzzling order may be relaxed in this country, or at any rate relaxed so far that Dr. Nair may be able, if not to address public meetings, at least to write as he pleases in the papers.
TEE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (LORD ISLINGTON): My Lords, in rising to answer the Question which my noble friend has put on the Paper, I am afraid I cannot maintain that any precise
966
precedent can he found for the course of action to be taken with regard to Dr. Nair. The circumstances of Dr. Nair's arrival in this country from India, which I will explain in the course of my answer to my noble friend's Question, are of such a character that I think no English precedents can well be given as relevant. The question of prohibiting an Indian coming to this country from addressing public meetings on the subject of Indian reforms, now that the Report of the Secretary of State and of the Viceroy has been published, is undoubtedly a matter of some difficulty, and I may say that it has received prolonged and careful consideration by His Majesty's Government. The question at issue is complicated by the former decision which His Majesty's Government found themselves obliged to make, before the publication of the Report, in the case of Mr. Tilak.
As the House is aware, some months ago Mr. Tilak and a group of his associates were given passports in India to come to this country to advocate a policy of Home Rule for India. His Majesty's Government when they heard of it decided to prohibit these gentlemen proceeding on their journey here, and instructions were immediately given for those who had already started to be shipped back to India. Subsequently it was found necessary to modify this order so far as Mr. Tilak was concerned in order to permit him to come to this country, if he so desired, to be present at the action for libel which he is bringing against Sir Valentine Chirol, alluded to by my noble friend. In offering this concession His Majesty's Government imposed the strict condition on Mr. Tilak that he should be obliged to confine himself when in this country to the law suit proceedings; that he should not be allowed in any circumstances to take part in public meetings, or to express in public any views on Home Rule for India.
I may say here that it is not yet definitely known whether Mr. Tilak has decided to come to the United Kingdom and to comply with these conditions. I need not justify at any length the restrictions which His Majesty's Government thought it necessary to impose on the grant of a passport to Mr. Tilak. It must be remembered that in India, as indeed in other parts of the Empire, the necessary and reasonable rule has been laid down that passports to proceed to Europe from India and those other countries during the war are re-

967
stricted to persons who can show that there is a public or private necessity for the journey. His Majesty's Government decided, and I think your Lordships will agree decided rightly, that there was no public necessity for a group of persons to come here from India for the avowed purpose of conducting a violent agitation in favour of Home Rule for that country, and at the same time for denouncing the Secretary of State's and the Viceroy's inquiries as altogether inadequate and perfunctory in their character. Therefore the passports of Mr. Tilak and his friends were accordingly cancelled.
But when Mr. Tilak represented that he had also an important private object for the journey, and that the embargo would place him at a great disadvantage in the prosecution of his libel action, the Government of India and the Secretary of State for India recognised that he had a legitimate grievance. The question then was whether, if granted a passport to enable him to carry on his action, he should be under restrictions or not as regards political activities and agitations while in this country. If no conditions were imposed there was no reason why the other Home Rule delegates who had been turned back with him should not similarly obtain passports on the pretext of private business, and that would thereby defeat the policy which His Majesty's Government have thought necessary to adopt towards the Home Rule propaganda in this country. The condition which I have mentioned has accordingly been strictly imposed upon Mr. Tilak.
I consider that it would be inopportune for me to attempt to give any detailed description of Mr. Tilak's past career at this particular juncture when his libel action against Sir Valentine Chirol is about to come before the Courts. I will merely say this, that his career and his personality are sufficiently well known throughout the country here and in India, and it is not difficult to imagine the sort of campaign which he would conduct against the Reforms Report and against British rule in India if he were permitted to come here and to have freedom of speech as part of the conditions.
I now come to the case of Dr. Nair. Let me say at starting that I entirely agree with my noble friend that Dr. Nair is a very different gentleman from Mr. Tilak. I have the pleasure of the acquaintance of
968
Dr. Nair. I met him when I was in India, and I know that as a resident of Madras he is a gentleman of the highest integrity and loyalty to the Crown; and in any course of action which the Government find it incumbent upon them now to take with regard to Dr. Nair, I wish emphatically to say that it in no sense is a reflection upon the character of that gentleman. Dr. Nair, I understand, is stated to have announced publicly his intention of coming to England to combat the views of Mr. Tilak in the event of Mr. Tilak coming to this country and holding meetings in favour of Home Rule. It is true that now Dr. Nair has come to this country for the purpose of receiving medical advice for his health. He was given a passport by the Government of Madras, and the permit was granted unconditionally. The Secretary of State for India, directly he heard that Dr. Nair was coming to England, felt himself obliged on grounds of justice and fair play to request Dr. Nair to give an undertaking to observe the same conditions of reticence during his visit to England as had been imposed upon Mr. Tilak in the event of his coining here for his law suit. This course had the Prime Minister's approval.
Your Lordships, I trust, will appreciate the difficulty of the situation from the brief history of this case which I have given. Three alternatives were open to His Majesty's Government. They could, in the first place, have reversed the action which they took in refusing to allow Mr. Tilak and his friends to come here on a Home Rule mission, and of course in that event no undertaking would have been asked from Dr. Nair; and there may be arguments, as they have been advanced by my noble friend, for that course of action. However, His Majesty's Government, in view of all the circumstances in which we are engaged in this war, and of the great preoccupation of Government Departments, and especially those which are engaged in this particular branch of the Service, rejected that course after long and careful consideration, because in view of all the circumstances surrounding Mr. Tilak's career and avowed opinions they were not prepared at this juncture to give him freedom to start an agitation.
The second alternative would have been to retain the prohibition on Mr. Tilak and to leave Dr. Nair free to speak. Your Lordships will, I think, see from what I have said and the peculiar circumstances

969
of this case that there are and would arise the very strongest objections if that course were taken. Undoubtedly it would have caused many Indians throughout India to have misinterpreted seriously the attitude of his Majesty's Government towards Indian Reform, and would have given a handle to many in that country to contend that the bona fides of His Majesty's Government in their announcement on August 20 of last year was in question.
My Lords, the third alternative, which the Government have found themselves compelled after consideration to adopt, is to continue for the time to impose the prohibition in both cases. I quite admit that the action taken may be open to criticism, but I hope that Dr. Nair will continue to display that loyalty which has characterised him in the past by abiding faithfully and honourably by the under-taking which he gave upon landing in this country, and thereby placing the position of himself and of Mr. Tilak, in the event of that gentleman coming to this country for his own private purposes, on the same footing. I hope you Lordships will agree that at any rate for the time being and at the present juncture, after hearing what I have said, this course, of the three alternatives, presents the least objection.
LORD LAMINGTON: May I, with the permission of the House, ask whether I correctly understand that Dr. Nair was informed before he left India.
LORD ISLINGTON: No, he was given a permit without any conditions imposed, and he was asked on landing here to sign an undertaking.
THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I cannot help reflecting that we are a most extraordinary people. Because in time of war and of great national emergency the Government think it unwise to allow an avowed enemy of this country to come here and agitate against. British rule in India, fair-play demands that we should not allow an avowed and loyal friend to speak up for the country to which he is proud to belong at the same time. I have no personal experience of India, and therefore can give no opinion from the Indian point of view; but I wholly disbelieve in this principle of government, and I should be sorry by my silence to have connived at it.

GERMANS AS BRITISH CONSULS.
LORD LAMINGTON LORD LAMINGTON had the following Question on the Paper—
To ask His Majesty's Government whether their attention has been called to a statement made by Lord Morris at Brighton on 2nd July to the effect that before the war Great Briitain had 1,000 consuls, of whom 900 were Germans, and to the statement by Lord Beresford in the House of Lards on 8th July that before the war 900 Germans were British consuls, and that 57 of these consuls are now Germans; and whether His Majesty's Government can give the House any official figures to support or to disprove these statements.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the question which I have to ask is simply with reference to certain statements which have been made. I am not sure whether the figures have been given in another place, but I think it is desirable, owing to the agitated state of the public mind about this question of the employment of Germans, that the Government should make some statement which will put before the public the exact state of affairs.
LORD STANMORE: My Lords, the attention of His Majesty's Government has been called to the statement made by Lord Morris at Brighton on July 2 in regard to the number of Germans in the British Consular Service, and to the statement made by Lord Beresford in this House on July 8 on the same subject. The following are the correct figures:—In 1913 there were 1,120 British Consular Officers. Of these, 311 were in the salaried Service and were therefore British subjects. Of the remaining 809 unsalaried officers, 454 were British subjects and 355 of foreign nationality. Of the 355 of foreign nationality, thirty-seven were Germans and thirteen were Austro-Hungarians. On the outbreak of war the appointment of those Consular officers who were of enemy nationality ceased automatically, and there are at present no Consular officers of enemy nationality in the Service.
LORD LAMINGTON: I thank the noble Lord for his statement.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL.
Amendments reported (according to Order).
LORD STRACHIE LORD STRACHIE moved the insertion of a new clause after Clause 5. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendment standing in my name is put down to meet the objections which the noble Lord in charge of the Bill raised when my noble friend Lord Lichfield moved a similar Amendment in regard to land drainage. Then Lord Clinton said that he took objection to Lord Lichfield's Amendment to Clause 5, not on its merits, but because it was not in the proper place and did not come within the four corners of the Bill. I think your Lordships will see that, as regards my Amendment, it is in its proper place, because it is a new clause, and, further, that it deals with agricultural land. If your Lordships look at the title of the Bill you will see that it is designed "to amend the Land Drainage Act, 1861, and to make further provision for the drainage of agricultural land." I venture to think that I have met the objections of the noble Lord the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Agriculture on those points.
I would remind the House that when we were in Committee on this Bill the noble Lord said—
"In addition, this is a clause which has nothing to do with powers. It has only to do with expenses, and I do not think it would be suitable to put into it any new set of powers. That is the real objection to the Amendment. I recognise the great advantage there would be of getting it done, but I am inclined to think it cannot be done in this way and under this clause."
Now I have proposed a clause which I hope the noble Lord will receive favourably, as he was not against the principle of the Amendment of Lord Lichfield but only said it was not in the proper place and did not deal with agricultural land.
As regards this Amendment, what does it do? It simply says that where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture that drainage works are necessary for the effectual draining of some particular land, then the Board may, if they think fit, authorise the local authority to drain that particular area. It does not mean great drainage schemes, but only that the local authority may, in cases where an owner or one or two owners are neglecting their duty and flooding their neighbours' land—and perhaps, in some cases, flooding a small town—be able to secure from the Board of Agriculture permission to remove the obstruction, cleanse the drains, and allow a free passage to the water and so stop the flooding. In these days, when we are always told that we are so anxious to
972
have more land under the plough, I suggest that this is one of the clauses which would be of great assistance, because I am sure the noble Lord is aware that frequently objection is taken to ploughing up land on the ground that it is constantly flooded. At the present moment there is no power for any local authority outside the drainage area to drain any of the land which is flooded, or to take proceedings against obstructing owners or tenants.
The Amendment which I propose is not compulsory or mandatory, and the noble Lord cannot object to having the powers to allow the local authority to make provision in their area, if the Board of Agriculture think fit. The local authority will not be anxious to do it, because they have to pay for it, unless there is good cause and reason. Surely in these days, when we are all anxious that land should be cultivated in the best possible manner, it is a right thing for the Board of Agriculture to be willing to assist in that matter. I hope the noble Lord will not refer me to Clause 16 of the Bill. Although it is quite true there is power in Clause 16, it is a different thing from sending officials from Whitehall to look after the matter. The local authority would never ask, and the Board would never give power to the local authority, unless the authority made out a good case, and showed that it was in the interests of the locality to drain an area which is outside the drainage area and could not otherwise be drained.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 5 insert as a new clause:
" Board may authorise local authority or highway authority to execute works.
". Where it is shown to the satisfaction of the Board of Agriculture that drainage works are necessary for the effectual draining and protection of agricultural land situate within the area of a local authority the Board may authorise the local authority or the highway authority, as the case may be, to undertake the drainage works themselves and may direct how and out of what fund or rate the expenses of the execution or maintenance of such drainage works may be defrayed."—(Lord Strachie.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE BOARD OF AGRICULTURE (LORD CLINTON): My Lords, the noble Lord has told us that the Amendment which he has put before your Lordships was—I think he said—the same as the Amendment put down by the noble Earl, Lord Lichfield.
LORD STRACHIE: I did not say the same—altered to meet your objections.
LORD CLINTON: Altered to meet my objections. I have not got the Amendments with me, but I do not recognise the similarity between them. As far as I recollect—I may be wrong—Lord Lichfield's Amendment asked for powers for two authorities—the local authority under the Public Health Act, and the highway authority. I think that was the case. Now the noble Lord's Amendment is a very wide one. It gives powers to any local authority, from parish councils upwards, and including the highway authority, I suppose, to undertake drainage works in their area. If your Lordships would be good enough to refer to Clause 5 of the Bill you will see that power is given to two authorities—the local authority under the Public Health Act, and the highway authority—to contribute to the expenses of the execution or maintenance of drainage work where, in the opinion of the Local Government Board, it is advisable for them to do so, either in the interests of public health or the better enjoyment of the highways. I note that clause because I should like to say this. Those powers were very severely criticised in another place on the ground that the authorities might be executing works and improving the property of private owners at the expense of the rates. It was amended to some extent to get over that difficulty, because the Local Government Board had to be consulted and to say that the public benefit derived would be sufficient to justify the expenditure. The noble Lord's proposal is a very wide extension of those powers. It is that any local authority should do any drainage work for agricultural land, and that they do not want the sanction of the Local Government Board.
LORD STRACHIE: That of the Board of Agriculture would be required.
LORD CLINTON: I think they should require the sanction of the Local Government Board, but they do not ask for the Board of Agriculture to say that the cost of their work is not more than the benefit they do. If there was criticism against the smaller powers of Clause 5, I think it would be difficult to get this clause passed. The noble Lord speaks also as if he would have compulsory powers to make owners do their duty. I do not think there is any
974
thing in this clause which would enable him to go on to an owner's property without his consent. I do not think there is, and, if there is not, of course that fact would very largely curtail any use to which these powers could be put. Supposing it is, as I have some idea, that this is really for the purpose of highway authorities, or some authority of that kind, to enable them to drain their roads, then obviously the Amendment should go into their particular Act and not in this Land Drainage Bill; and I suggest to the noble Lord—he does not wish me to refer to Clause 16 and so I will not do so, although it is one of the clauses under which the local authorities should get power to get the drainage done—I suggest to him that under Clause 1 there is power for the county councils to apply to the Board of Agriculture. Subsection (2), I think it is.
LORD STRACHIE: Drainage areas?
LORD CLINTON: Transferred to them. Again, there is power under Clause 2 to petition the Board to have a drainage area formed, or the drainage area extended; and then, lastly, there is power in Clause 16. It appears to me that these powers are a great deal more than was asked for originally, and I regret I am not able to accept the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD CLINTON: The first Amendment standing in my name is put in at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Ancaster, and some other noble Lords, during the Committee stage, object being more clearly to define Clause 16, and show that it dealt only with small areas.
Amendment moved—
Clause 16, page 8, line 25, after ("of the works") insert ("which shall not exceed an amount equal to five pounds for each acre in the area to be improved, or five thousand pounds in all").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CLINTON: The other Amendments are all drafting, and I will move them together.
Amendments moved—
Clause 19, page 10, line 19, after ("Majesty") insert ("in right of the Duchy of Lancaster or")
Clause 19, page 10, line 21, after ("writing") insert ("of the Chancellor of the Duchy or")
Clause 19, page 10, line 24, after ("said") insert ("Chancellor of the Duchy")
Clause 19, at end insert as a new subsection:
"(2) Nothing in this part of this Act affects prejudicially any estate, right, power, privilege or exemption vested in or enjoyed by the Duke of Cornwall or the possessor for the time being of the Duchy of Cornwall."
Clause 21, page 10, line 37, after ("shall") insert ("subject as hereinbefore expressly provided").—(Lord Clinton.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

THE PLUM CROP.
LORD HINDLIP LORD HINDLIP rose to ask His Majesty's Government—(1) What is the estimated average crop of plums in the United Kingdom this year. (2) By what Department was the estimate made. (3) Is it the intention of the Ministry of Food to fix prices for plums on the estimated crop of the United Kingdom, adopting the same system of average as in the case of small soft fruits of the 1918 Crop.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at this time of the evening I will not detain your Lordships more than two or three moments. My reasons for putting down this Question are that the growers, many of them interested in the plum and apple crop, were not very satisfied with the "brief" that was furnished by the Ministry of Food to the Lord Privy Seal, and are much agitated as to the way in which they are to he treated as regards the plum and apple crop by the Ministry of Food. They are not asking for outrageous prices, but only for fair treatment. May I draw the noble Earl's attention to my third Question? On the last Occasion the noble Earl said that the Ministry of Food were going to adhere to their methods of averaging the crop all over the United Kingdom, and that it was impossible to have one price for Worcestershire and one for Middlesex. I do not want to go into that, but in the case of potatoes, both as regards price and yield, it has been done.
Let me also draw the noble Earl's attention to the statement he made, which concerned the plum crop as well as the small fruit crop during the debate a week or ten days ago. He said that according to the calculations of the Ministry of Food small growers were allowed a profit of £10 per acre. I think, if the noble Earl went into the figures given in his own speech, he would see that the Ministry of Food were putting him in a rather difficult position by making him say that a profit of £10 per acre was a reason
976
able profit. Consider the case of a man with five, or six, or seven, acres of land, out of which he has to get his livelihood. He is debarred by a Government Department from making more than £10 an acre; say £50, £60 or £70 a year, when wages are 30 s. a week. The noble Earl will agree with me that such a statement will be badly received by the small growers.
I do not know whether I ought to ask the noble Earl this question. I have not given him notice, and therefore I shall not be disappointed if he tells me he cannot answer. I should like to know whether it is possible that any producer of fruit has been on these Committees which fix prices. I am not asking this in regard to the prices of fruit, but I think producers of fruit in the country will be anxious to know that there is some producer of fruit on the Committees which fix prices.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: My Lords, I do not desire to re-open matters which were dealt with the other day. When I said it was impossible to fix county prices I was referring to specified classes of soft fruit. My noble friend will see, from the terms of my answer, that this does not apply in the same way to plums. With regard to the composition of the Committees, I fancy that growers of fruit are under a needless misapprehension. Growers are represented on these Committees. They are not composed solely of jam buyers, as my noble friend suggested the other day, and the Reports in question are obtained by the Ministry of Food and the three Boards of Agriculture, who combine and agree upon a figure which they consider to be just. These Reports, so far as plums are concerned, I regret to say, show that the crop of this season, as far as many varieties are concerned, is a total failure, and there is no intention of attempting to compute the average crop of all varieties taken together, and to fix a flat maximum price for plums. I am not yet in a position to give any estimate of the yield of any particular variety, and I cannot answer the first Question for the moment, at any rate. I have already answered the second Question; that the estimate is made by the three Boards of Agriculture in conjunction with the Ministry of Food. As at present advised, the Food Controller only intends to fix prices for those varieties of plums of which there is a substantial crop, and which are suitable for manufacture into jam. In fixing these prices the general

977
principles adopted in the case of the soft fruit this season will be followed, and I am not aware that there is any other method by which the interests of the producer and consumer can both be adequately protected.
LORD HINDLIP: May I take it that the answer refers to special plums grown in the south of England?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORD: Certainly. The Pershire plum is one of those which comes into the second category that I mentioned, because it is a first-class plum for jam purposes.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION (SILICOSIS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
VISCOUNT SANDHURST: My Lords, I move that the House resolve itself into Committee. I promised on this Motion to give my noble and learned friend Lord Buckmaster an explanation on two points. My noble and learned friend is not here, but I feel bound to carry out the undertaking. The first point was whether this matter could not be dealt with under the industrial diseases provisions of the existing Workmen's Compensation Act, 1906. I explained the reasons partially last night. The main reasons are the slow growth of the disease, and the difficulty of diagnosis. It takes so long for the disease to develop. A man may work in the industry for twenty years or more before he becomes incapacitated, and it is considered that it would be unfair to throw the whole burden of the compensation upon the man's last employer, for under the existing Act you can only put the liability on the man's last employer and any other employers who employed him in the same occupation within the twelve months preceding his incapacity. Special arrangements, therefore, are deemed necessary to spread the liability fairly over all the employers, and this can best be done by having a general compensation fund to which all employers are required to contribute.
Further, as the disease comes on very slowly and the man can go on working for a long time after it first begins to affect him, there would be a danger of some men losing their employment when they
978
began to show symptoms of the disease in order that the payment of compensation might be avoided. This danger was recognised by the Industrial Diseases Committee which reported in 1907, and which considered the question of the extension of the existing Act to this disease (among others) shortly before the Act of 1906 was passed. The difficulties of diagnosis make it necessary to have a much more elaborate system of medical supervision and examination than is provided for in the Workmen's Compensation Act, and these arrangements I explained yesterday. In view of these and other considerations, it is considered desirable to deal with each of the industries liable to the disease separately by means of the special schemes which I explained on Second Reading.
The second point I understood was, "What would happen, if the Fund was depleted, in regard to compensation for the man?" The reply is that as long as the industry remains solvent the fund will be solvent too. The scheme will require the employers to make such contributions as are necessary in order to keep the fund solvent, and, as I mentioned yesterday, it is hoped by careful medical examinations and by exercising the power of suspension gradually to eliminate the disease from the industry, and the charge for compensation therefore will be heaviest in the earliest years when we are dealing with the cases which have been accumulated in the past.
Lord Buckmaster was apprehensive lest the Bill should take away or impair rights which a diseased workman might have under the existing Compensation Act. A workman suffering from this disease would have no right under the existing Act until the Act had been extended by Order of the Home Secretary to this disease. As I explained last night, it was decided not to recommend that it should be so extended. I think that these are the answers to the questions asked. Of course, it would have been easy to do it by Order if such a means had been adequate.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Sandhurst.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Bill reported without amendment.

THE FOURTH OF AUGUST.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD FINLAY): My Lords, I beg to move—
"That this House do attend at St. Margaret's, Westminster, on Sunday, the 4th of August, being the fourth anniversary of the Declaration of War, to invoke the Divine Blessing on our just cause."
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE BILLS.
[From Minutes of July 16.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, That the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that the further Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Rotherham Corporation.

Sheffield Corporation (Consolidation).

Lancaster Corporation.

Also the Certificates that no Standing Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Order (No. 2).

Electric Lighting Provisional Orders.

And also the Certificates that the Standing Orders applicable to the following Bills have been complied with:

Local Government (Ireland) Provisional Orders (No. 1).

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments.
SMITH ESTATE BILL. [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported, without amendment.

BELFAST HARBOUR BILL.
Reported, without amendment.
House adjourned at five minute, before eight o'clock.