I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I hope the House will excuse me if I put before it the considerations which have guided me in asking to be allowed to insert this new Clause in the Bill. I put it down for the Committee stage. Perhaps some hon. Members of the House will remember that we reached it at a very late hour. I withdrew it, because the Home Secretary stated that he could not accept it, and I did not want at that late hour to keep the House on this question. I am anxious to take this opportunity to set out the justification for this particular demand for an alteration in the law of nationality as particularly affecting married women. It is a matter I brought forward in 1914, and which at that time excited a very considerable amount of interest, especially among women's associations in this country. At the present time I can say that almost all the women's associations agree that some alteration should be made in the law with regard to the nationality of married women, and they are very anxious that something should be done. It is undoubtedly possible to make such an Amendment in this Bill, inasmuch as it professes to amend the Act of 1914 and inasmuch also as it includes specific proposals which affect married women. I should like, in the first instance, to express my appreciation of the fact that when we were discussing this question in Committee the Home Secretary met me to a very considerable extent by remedying very largely the proposal that the Bill originally put forward, and under which a British-born woman who had married a naturalised subject and had therefore never lost her British nationality, was to be liable, at the discretion of the Home Secretary or the Advisory Committee, to be turned into an alien because of some action of her husband who ex hypothesi had done something that was wrong to justify the Home Secretary in withdrawing the privilege of British nationality that he had given to him.

The Clause which the right hon. Gentlemen has inserted in the Bill provides 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is satisfied that if she had held a certificate of naturalisation in her own right the certificate could properly have been revoked under this Act. That goes very far to meet my case, but at the same time I am sure he will excuse me if I point out that it still directly offends the great principle of the law that a British subject shall not and cannot be deprived of his or her British nationality, I believe, for any reason whatever, though it is possible that there still remains some vestige of the law of outlawry. At the present time you deal with a British subject according to your own criminal law. You punish him or her and you deal with his or her offence, but you cannot at the present time remove from a British man or woman his or her British nationality. That was so far accepted in 1914 that the Government agreed that when a British husband preferred to change his nationality his British wife should not be compelled to follow. She was given a definite right to retain her British nationality. This right is now being taken away from her. The question may appear, inasmuch as we have been led to such an extent by the Home Secretary, to be a small point, but it is not. It is the application of the very great principle that no action of an individual British subject entitles the State to take away his or her British nationality. This Bill says that if a British-born woman who has never been anything else but a British-born woman, who has married a British subject and who has British children, happens to have done something wrong under this Act—it may be very serious, but some of these acts may not be very serious—the Secretary of State can step in and say, "You now cease to be a British subject. You must go and accept some other nationality. It may be German, it may be French, it may be Italian, or it may be nothing at all, because we know that under certain circumstances a person can have no nationality." She may find herself annexed to her husband, who is not allowed to claim his nationality, and therefore she gets no nationality. It is a serious position which we are adopting at the present time, and I am very sorry indeed that the Home Secretary has failed to realise the extraordinarily important effect that this little change may make in the whole question of nationalisation.

Undoubtedly the women outside this House feel this question very strongly, and they must feel it more strongly as they get to understand it more and more. They say—and I believe quite rightly—that as a man has certain rights in changing his nationality, so a woman ought to have the same rights of changing her nationality. It is no answer to say that a woman by marrying an alien must change her nationality. If a man marries an alien he does not change his nationality, and if you are going to get real equality between the sexes you ought to give to the woman just the same right of saying, "I prefer not to change my nationality to my husband's nationality," as you give to the husband the right of saying, "I prefer to remain a British subject." It is no newfangled idea; it is the old historic law of the Anglo-Saxon race. The law for hundreds of years has been that a British woman shall not lose her British nationality if she marries an alien. It was so until 1880, when the law was changed simply for the purposes of convenience, because a certain Committee of experts thought it advisable to bring our law more into agreement with the Continental law. On that occasion no woman had any say in the matter. There was no woman on the Committee, and, so far as I have been able to judge from reading the Debates in this House, the question of the position of women was never even discussed. They never had a chance of giving an expression to their views. I mention that because I am very anxious now to get some assurance from the Home Secretary in connection with this Committee which he is setting up to consider the whole question of nationality that the case of the women will be thoroughly considered and investigated. I wish further to ask him to see that a woman is placed on that Committee. There are women who have taken a great interest in this question, and they are quite as much experts in the matter as any man.

I believe he will find, if he constitutes a Committee so that the women's views can be thoroughly ascertained and investigated, that not only here, but in all our Colonies, the same conviction has grown up that a married woman ought not to be compelled to accept the nationality of her husband simply because she has married him and for no other reason. I believe he knows—I know that the Colonial Office know—that the Act of 1914 is supposed to apply to the whole Empire. The Australian Commonwealth have refused to apply it on this particular question, and an Australian woman if she marries an alien has a right to retain her Australian and therefore her British nationality. He will find that in Canada also there is a strong feeling in favour of retaining what was the old Canadian law. Therefore, I do beg when this matter conies up for discussion and investigation that, with a view to the permanent settlement of the question, a woman may be placed on the Committee and the whole case of the women may be thoroughly investigated. I want to explain why I have put down this new Clause in this form. The Section which regulates this particular question is Section 10 of the British Nationality Act of 1914. It does it in three lines. It simply says

"The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject, and the wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien."

It is an extremely simple way of stating the law as it was altered in 1870. A woman becomes a British subject simply by the act of marriage. A woman loses her British nationality simply by the act of marriage. I cannot help flunking that in both those cases, if they are thoroughly well thought out, the House will see that the law at present has very great disadvantages. Take, for instance, the first provision, "The wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject." That means to say that at the present time all that a German who wants to receive the full rights of British nationality has to do is to marry a British subject. There are many British subjects who might connive at that sort of thing. It is not at all impossible to imagine in the present War. But you have the position that, by our present law, the nation hands itself over to a process by which a foreign and alien woman can become a British subject without any knowledge of the Home Office, unless they are able to investigate all the marriages that take place either in this country or elsewhere. I suggest that that consideration alone would justify a very full investigation of the advisability of retaining this simple law that the wife of a British subject shall be deemed to be a British subject. I propose in my new Clause to deal with it in another way. I propose to say:

"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."

I believe that a Clause like that would be of the greatest protection to this country and to the Home Office. The Home Office at present has no discretion in the matter. I ask that, if any alien woman desires to become a British subject, she may make a declaration that she desires to be a British subject, and, if she makes that declaration, the Home Office shall investigate the case and be able to say Yes or No, according to whether or not it is in the public interest that that foreign woman shall be allowed to marry a Britisher and receive thereby the full advantages that British nationality gives. The full advantages British nationality now gives to people are very great, but the disadvantages to British women who marry foreigners are also very great. I have had several letters in connection with this matter, but I will give one instance in my own knowledge of a British woman who married an Italian subject. She separated from him because of his cruelty. He claimed the child under the law and she could not take it away. She has been in England all this time, while he has been in Italy. He is a friendly alien, but, because she is married to an Italian subject, she has been subjected to all the hardships of police inspection. Until quite recently, when the Home Office exempted her, she could not travel anywhere without a permit, and she could not change her address. She was treated exactly as an alien because she was an alien, although she had married a friendly alien and had been separated from him for several years. That is only one instance of thousands of cases. I have some others showing exactly the same thing. That brings me to my second point. The law says

"The wife of an alien shall be deemed to be an alien."

I propose to meet that by saying

"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."

That would be a perfectly justifiable proposal when a woman is marrying a foreigner, unless we say she must lose her British nationality because she marries a foreigner. I think that is a very unjust thing to say. She would have the right of saying, once for all, "It is quite true, I am marrying a foreigner, but I have lived in England all my life, my children are British-born, and I prefer to remain a British subject and have all the rights of a British subject." Upon that she would have the right to remain a British subject.

Does the right hon. Gentleman propose that that should be retrospective?

It would not be retrospective under this Clause. She would have that right. But if, on the contrary, she should say, as I have no doubt many women would say, "I am marrying a German or a Frenchman or an American"—it is not a question of Germans alone; it is a question of the whole world—"I think, on the whole, I should prefer to adopt the nationality of my husband. I am going to America, and I should prefer to be an American subject, therefore I will make a declaration of alienage and say I do not want to retain my rights of British citizenship." That would be perfectly justifiable. You would then be treating women with precisely the same measure of justice that you treat men. Really that is the reason why I raise this question now. I appeal to the House to recognise that there is nothing in the law of nationality which justifies us in refusing absolute equality of treatment as between men and women. The hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Holt) made a speech the other night in which he seemed to scout absolutely the idea that a woman would want to be of a different nationality from her husband, or indeed that it would be advisable to say that she might.

Why did she marry him?

That is exactly the question. She marries for all sorts of reasons, and the one reason which in thousands of cases never occurs to her mind is the question of nationality. I am perfectly certain that hundreds and thousands of these unfortunate women who have been suffering all through this War, British-born women, who have been treated hardly because they became German citizens never realised when they married that they were giving up their nationality. In fact, I have letters with me here from women who have written to me thanking me for the action I have taken, and saying—they axe educated women—that they never realised when they married that they were going to give up the rights of British citizenship. The rights of British citizenship are very great and important—I need hardly emphasise that—especially to persons who live abroad.

Would any effect be given to this Clause abroad or in the British Empire?

Certainly, it would have an important effect all over the British Empire. My hon. Friend (Mr. Pringle) is labouring under a mistake under which so many people labour. They talk about nothing but Germany.

No!

We are not dealing with Germany only, we are talking about the Argentine, America, and other countries. In all those countries it would be of advantage to some people to be able to claim their rights as British citizens.

Would this Clause have any effect in any country where the nationality law was different from the nationality law in this country?

Yes; I am perfectly certain it would. It is very difficult to dogmatise on the effect of nationality law, because it varies everywhere, but I can assure my hon. Friend that there are countries in which the very fact that we have allowed a woman who has married a foreigner to retain her British nationality would be of the utmost value to her. If he looks at the question and thoroughly studies it, he will see that there are many countries where women, if we pass this into law, would get the protection that British citizenship gives them. I am sorry if I have appeared to be taking up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I have done so because it is very rarely we get an occasion on which we can raise this important question. During the whole of my time in the House of Commons the only-time I was able to raise it was in 1914, when I was able to secure considerable alterations in the law. Never since then has there been an opportunity of raising the question. The whole question of naturalisation has never been dealt with by the Members of this House. It was referred to a Committee of the Home Office. That Committee brought up a Memorandum for the purpose of circulating it to the various Dominions across the seas. That memorandum contained no reference to the question of the nationality of married women. If I am not misinformed, it was not even relegated to the Colonial Governments, which have been considering the question. I understand this branch of the subject was not mentioned in the Report of the Home Office Committee, and was not laid before any of the Colonial Governments which are dealing with the matter, and, therefore, for the first time we have an opportunity of discussing it on this occasion, because the Home Office has naturally found itself bound to deal with it in some way or another in relation to this Bill. If my raising the question only results in getting a more satisfactory understanding on this general subject, I shall feel that I have achieved as much as I could hope for.

I desire to support my right hon. Friend in his very persuasive and carefully reasoned speech. I think it is somewhat unfortunate that the Report stage of the Bill has been taken in such a great hurry. It is an important Bill. It was described by the Home Secretary as a drastic measure, entailing penalties upon offenders, and when a Bill of that kind is proposed it is very unfortunate that merely one day has been left to the Home Secretary among his many pre-occupations to consider the problems which have arisen, and that we ourselves were unable to see any of the Amendments last night. I got my Amendment paper about half an hour before I came to the House, and the Home Secretary, as far as I can see, has done very little except use this opportunity to withdraw one concession which he made to me.

We are not discussing the Bill generally. We are discussing this Clause.

On this Clause I cannot but think that the remarks I have made have some relevance, because the House had no opportunity to discuss it in Committee, and has only had half an hour before the House met to consider more fully the points which were put by the right hon. Gentleman in Committee two days ago, and I cannot but think, for that and for other reasons, that we might have had a little more time.

It is no part of my duty to decide what measures shall be taken in the House.

In that case, what I have said does not apply to the Home Secretary, but to the Leader of the House. The Home Secretary met this proposal by suggesting an ordinary shelving expedient. He wishes to appoint a Committee of experts, mostly lawyers, I suppose, to deal with this very difficult question. The Committee will consider the matter and report. What possible guarantee is there that the House will ever have an opportunity of dealing with the problem again? We know committees, we know the value of their reports, and we know how few of their recommendations get carried through. The alteration of the law which we are objecting to was laid down in 1870. There had been no chance of dealing with it until 1914. That is forty-four years, and now, in the middle of a war, we get another chance. In spite of the Committee of experts, I rather imagine it will be another forty years before some measure comes up on which we shall get another chance of dealing with it, and, therefore, I am very strongly in favour of dealing with it now and considering it in the time which has been given by the Leader of the House. The main point which we have complained about is that the question of the status of married women has been dealt with by the application of a mouldy and moth-eaten lawyers' shibboleth which appeals to the legal mind. The woman is either under the control of the father or the husband. That often happens as a matter of fact. But the legal principle is different, and the objection to dealing with this on the mere abstract principle of Roman law or some earlier law probably—it is the Hindu law, too—is that it leaves out of account the fact to which my right hon. Friend makes reference. You have to consider it far more in relation to the facts.

I think the Mover of the Clause was on very strong ground when he pointed out the absurdity which comes from treating the wife of a British subject as a British subject even though she may have been born a foreigner. After all, the privileges of British citizenship are very considerable. In the case of an alien who desires to be naturalised he has to comply with a great number of formalities. He has to reside here for five years. He has to satisfy the Home Secretary that he has a good character, that he has an adequate knowledge of the English law and intends to reside in His Majesty's Dominions or to continue in the service of the Crown, and even then the Home Secretary is not bound to grant it. But in the case of a woman who marries a British subject you dispense with all those precautions and safeguards, and say that the mere marriage satisfies all the requirements. It does not. It does not necessarily satisfy the requirements that she should be of good character, that she knows the English language, or that she has resided here. Take the case of a German woman who marries a British subject. Then war breaks out between the two countries. She is a British subject through no expression of her own opinion. She may not have resided here long enough to get any attachment to the country. The old ties survive. You have compulsorily, by an automatic process, turned her into a British subject, but her sentiments of allegiance to her old home naturally remain, and, in spite of this legal principle, which is the only ground for this action, one knows perfectly well that these sentiments of attachment to her own country survive, and the mere fact that she marries a British subject does not make her lose the love of her own country, and we know perfectly well cases where German women married to British subjects have had to be interned. So the legal principle in virtue of which the present position is determined does not get you over very serious difficulties. And, after all, she might fairly say, "I do not ask to be a British subject. Your law compulsorily turns me into a British subject, but perhaps my brothers have been fighting in Germany, and I cannot clear my mind from the ties which bind me to my own country." That is the fault of the law. Do not make her into a British subject unless in her own mind she wishes to belong to this country. The position of a German female spy married to a British subject is certainly very advantageous——

Would she have a vote?

I presume she would.

She only requires to make a declaration.

I am not quite certain whether that is carried out by the Clause, but I think she should comply with the same requirements that any foreigner has to comply with. I think if you had any ground for assuming that in spite of five years' residence in this country she was not British in sentiment, the Home Secretary ought to have the same right of excluding her from British nationality until he is satisfied as in the case of other aliens. She ought to be treated just like other aliens in that matter. Somebody may say, "Why does she marry a British subject?" She marries him because she is in love with him and not because she is in love with his British nationality. She may have various reasons for marrying him.

Why does the man marry her?

That does not come in. That is a separate question; but by virtue of your abstract legal principle there is attached to it a consequence which has nothing whatever to do with the mere wish to marry. The wish to marry does not necessarily involve the wish to transfer your nationality. We know perfectly well from cases that have occurred that it does not mean that. A German wife may wish to marry a British subject, but one knows of several cases where that does not in the least alter the natural ties of affection for their own country. The pedantic adherence to this ancient chivalry upon which we are acting leads to grave difficulties, and I think for the protection of the State we ought to revise it and really base the claim to nationality primarily on the wish of the person affected. We come to that position in the case of the man by a long process. I think I am right in saying that you cannot get away from your nationality. You owe your allegiance to the Crown, and the Crown declines to surrender the claim upon the subject. But the man's nationality depends upon the will of the subject. You allow a transfer. You do not retain unwilling subjects. In the old days we had a great fight with the United States in regard to subjects who lived there after the declaration of American independence. We claimed their nationality, but we gave that up. We have accepted the principle in the case of the man that the nationality should really rest on the state of the man's mind. We ought to accept that in the case of the wife and say that her nationality should depend upon her state of mind and not upon the mere accident of marriage, which depends upon other considerations. If the matter dealt with that branch of the subject only, the House would probably wish to revise the law. It is the other branch of the subject which would probably cause more difficulty.

Take the case of a British-born woman who commits the indiscretion of marrying a foreigner. That appears to be regarded as a crime or an offence or a fault on her part which is to be visited upon her by the imposition of what the Home Secretary calls the drastic penalties of this law. She loses her citizenship. I cannot see why we should exclude her from British citizenship, if she wishes to retain her British citizenship, merely because she marries an alien. Take the case of a foreign woman who marries a Britisher and who does not mean to become a British subject, but who means to live in this country. There will be a dual nationality there between the husband and wife. I do not believe any real difficulties follow from that. The question of property depends upon domicile. The question of children is determined under the ordinary law. It is no more difficult that there should be a difference of nationality between the husband and the wife than that here should be a difference of nationality between the wife and her eldest son, nor do I see the least difficulty—there is no practical difficulty—in a woman having a double nationality, being an Italian by Italian law, say, and English by English law. Those cases occur at the present time. I know several people who have a dual nationality. I do not see why we should exclude from British citizenship a British-born woman merely because she marries a foreigner. If she wants to join her husband's country—if, like Ruth, she wants to follow her husband's people and belong to her husband's nation—then let her make her declaration and let her go; but if she wants to retain her British citizenship, and she is proud of it, I cannot see why she should be deprived of it. I do not think anybody would have thought of attaching this penalty to her if it had not been for this mere legal principle which hangs about the lawyer's mind. If you read the Report of the Committee in 1870 they did not argue it. The legal mind accustomed to the application of this law naturally follows out the consequences, and says that these are the consequences which must follow from this general principle. But that has nothing to do with the real facts, and it leads to great difficulties.

I hope the House will take the opportunity of putting the law not upon the basis of an ancient legal fiction, not upon the basis of a shibboleth, but upon the ground of common sense. Certainly in the case of a foreign wife marrying a British subject there can be no doubt as to the common sense of the matter. There may be some difficulty in hon. Members' minds on the other side, but the more you think of it you must realise that it is really unjust, by this compulsory and automatic process, to deprive people who have done no harm, and ought never to come under the penal Clauses of this Act. If you have got any overt ground against them; if you consider that the wife by marrying a foreigner, especially if the country is at war, has shown hostility to the country of her origin, and that she is not a good subject and a good citizen, then the Home Secretary has power under this Bill to deal with her on her merits. Deal with her on her merits by all means, but not because she happens to be the wife of a foreigner. The difficulty of the view which is expressed in the position that we have come to is whether the wife is a kind of handbag which the man carries about with him to and from a foreign country. She is treated as a mere chattel and appendage with no will of her own. That, I confess, does not correspond to the new facts of the time. I think we had better bring the law into accordance with common sense, and I ask the Home Secretary to take the trouble to make up his mind. He says he has his mind open on the subject. At all events, he was not positive on the main question. If he hands it over to a committee of experts that will postpone it to some indefinite time, and there is no security that this Committee will ever have action taken on their advice. In the circumstances I think we should explore this problem a little more, and I think that after a little more investigation the House might come to the conclusion that it was a desirable change and that this was an opportunity for making the change and that we are not likely to get another.

I regretted to hear the references by my right hon. Friends to this Bill being taken to-day. When to-day was fixed no objection of any kind was taken. I think that the House is anxious to pass this Bill as quickly as possible. Certainly that is my position. I have a long waiting list of persons who would be dealt with under this Bill when it becomes law, and I want the Committee to get to work at the earliest possible moment. As regards the Amendment, of course it has no bearing on the present War, because it is not retrospective, and no marriages with alien enemies take place during the War.

Why not?

No alien enemy marries in this country without leave, and no such leave is given.

I know cases in which it was done.

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean that a German woman in this country cannot marry a British subject?

There may be exceptions, but the general rule is as I have stated.

That is the first I have heard of it.

This Amendment raises a big question affecting the law as to the status of women, and, as I stated in the Committee stage, I hope that advantage will not be taken of this Bill to enter into what must be a long controversy on this matter, because I am afraid it may affect the chances of the rapid passage of the measure. I know that feeling on this point is very strong, and I think it would not be reasonable to encumber the Bill with a discussion on a big subject of this kind. This Amendment would mean that if a British woman marries a foreigner and goes to live in a foreign country she remains a British subject and entitled to the protection of this country. On the other hand, it means that if a foreign woman marries a British subject and comes to live here she shall be entitled, though living in this country, to the protection of that foreign country.

And the same in the case of a man.

I am not saying that it is right or wrong. I have expressed no opinion. I do not pretend to express an opinion, except that I think it undesirable to deal with the matter in this Bill. Apart from that, some time ago a law was passed on the subject of nationality, and most of our Dominions have agreed to it. They have adopted our Act of 1914. Australia has not adopted it, but most of them have done so. Before proposing this Bill we consulted them, so as not to break in on the uniformity that has on the whole obtained, and without such consultation I would be unwilling to make any change in the law on the subject of women marrying foreigners. Canada has dealt with this question, but on different lines. I hope, therefore, that the House will not agree to this Amendment. I agree that that is a plea for postponing it, but I do ask to have it postponed. So far as my right hon. Friend asks that this matter should be considered by a Committee, I am entirely with him. I intend to propose at the Imperial Conference that a Committee shall be appointed at once, representing not only this country but the Dominions, to consider all the big questions that have been raised affecting the law of nationality. So far as I am concerned, I can say that this certainly will be one of the questions. I have every intention of in-chiding this question in the reference to the Committee. I do not think that my right hon. Friend expects us really to deal with the question of women's rights. He is entitled to raise it and argue it and give it prominence, but having done that and obtained from me an assurance that the matter shall be brought before the Committee, I hope that he will consider that sufficient and not press this Amendment, and so incur some risk as to the speedy passage of this Bill.

I have very considerable sympathy with this Amendment, but the speech of the Home Secretary has convinced me that it is quite impossible to deal with a matter of this magnitude in this Bill. After all, this is in the main primarily a war measure, and the proposal is not even germane to the primary purpose of the Bill. But a consideration which, to my mind, is conclusive against dealing with this matter now is that a question of this magnitude, affecting the law of nationality, must, so far as possible, be settled in concurrence with all our Dominions. There can be no opportunity of discussing the subject with the Dominions at present, and I think that the Home Secretary has indicated sufficiently that the matter is not going to be relegated to the obscure and indefinite future.

I am sorry that the Home Secretary has not seen his way to accept this Amendment. It does not seem to me to be necessary to leave this question over until the whole question of nationality is dealt with, nor can I think that it can be said that the things dealt with in this Bill are only war questions. But even if they were war questions, the position of women under the present naturalisation law, which makes them become foreign subjects by marrying a foreigner, is a war question, and involves great hardship. We do not regard it as any crime for a woman to marry a friendly alien at the present time, and we must remember that it was equally no crime before the War to marry an alien of any kind, because at that time we were on friendly terms with all of them. Hon. Members do not consider sufficiently how great a hardship this is considered to be by women. Suppose that men in this country had no votes and that the women had, and that a man was compelled to adopt the nationality of the woman whom he married, I think that the man would certainly regard that as a very gross hardship, and he would certainly feel that it was not an answer to be asked, "Why did you marry?" That is exactly the position of women. They are compelled to take the nationality of the man they marry, and then the question is put to them by some hon. Members, "Why did you marry him?" Women feel that to be a very great hardship, and I hope we shall be able to put it right now. We know it is the position that within a short time the women of this country, 6,000,000 or so of them, will have votes, and I think it is quite certain that when they get the vote there will be opportunities for this injustice to be put right. I think, however, it would be very-much more worthy and gracious if we dealt with the injustice now, and not wait until political pressure is put upon us from outside.

I do not think there is any half-way house in this matter, though I do not know how far the Mover of the Amendment will press his proposal after what has been said. I think it should be clearly understood that we want this question properly defined at some time or another in the near future, so that there may be equality of treatment between the sexes. The argument that a woman should not marry a foreigner unless she loses her nationality would be held by women voters and by others outside as a differentiation of treatment between the sexes, and I am entirely in favour of equality of treatment. The right hon. Gentleman says he does not like to make an alteration in the law without consultation with the Dominions. That argument was adduced in 1914, but it did not prevent the Goversment from accepting a change without consulting the Colonies. The right hon. Member for Walthamstow (Sir J. Simon), when he was on the Front Bench, accepted an Amendment which has been operative all through the War, and has been a great boon. It was urged on that occasion that the Colonies had not been consulted, but the right hon. Gentleman accepted the Amendment because it enabled the widow of an alien to revert back to her British nationality. That has been a very great boon to the women of this country during the War, and it was accepted without jeopardising the Bill, and without consulting the Colonies. I think something more might be done on this occasion, but I do not know how far the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment will press it.

May I make a suggestion to the Secretary of State? He is going, I understand, to set up immediately a Committee to consider the whole question of naturalisation. May I suggest to him that he should direct the special attention of the Committee to this question of the status of women, and possibly he might exercise his influence with the Government to bring in a short Bill after the Recess, in order to give effect to what is obviously the wish of this House. I know from communications, I have received, that women are very keenly interested in this subject. I presume that all hon. Members have received a memorial, which seems to me to be backed up by every women's organisation in the kingdom, and I must say this—that if we had had women Members of this House, it is quite obvious that two or three of them would have persuaded us to embody the Amendment of my right hon. Friend in this Bill, as, with women Members present, it would have been almost impossible for the business of the House to be conducted. Therefore, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider this suggestion which I make, of bringing in a short Bill after the Recess, embodying the results of the findings of the Committee on this subject.

I desire to associate myself with the argument put forward by the right hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment. I quite appreciate the position of the Home Secretary, and if we could have some assurance that this matter would come before the House again on definite proposals within a reasonably short time, the situation would be very different. As the matter is before the House now, it seems to us the right time to consider it, and, unless, before the discussion closes, we can have some assurance that the matter will come before the House again within a reasonably short time, we ought to divide on the question now.

After the two last speeches made pressing the Home Secretary to bring this matter before the Committee, and to follow that by bringing in a short Bill after the Recess, I think it is necessary to enter a caveat in regard to the whole proposal. My general attitude in regard to the question in which women are involved is one of sympathy with the position taken UP by my right hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment; but, in my view, I do not think the question of the equality of the sexes comes into this discussion at all, still less is it a question for the legal mind, as stated by the right hon. Gentlemen. The real question is simply a practical one. Although I should be sorry to say anything or take any action which would even have the appearance of being derogatory to the position of the right hon. Gentleman, yet, to my mind, it is inconceivable, as a matter of practical convenience, that the man and the wife can be of separate nationality. If the right hon. Gentleman had moved an Amendment which proposad some proceeding by which there might be an option so that any family might decide whether the nationality should be that of the husband or the wife, there should be something to say for it, but to propose that the husband should be of one nationality and the wife of another seems to me perfectly impracticable. When we do come to review the whole question of the nationality and status of aliens, we shall find ourselves up against another very important difficulty in regard to this proposal. Until the time comes, as I hope it may, when the natural-born British citizen will be a person who is born of British parents, and not a person merely born on British soil, the question arises should the child follow the nationality of the father or that of the mother, and to those of us who are anxious to see equality between the sexes no doubt the claim of the mother to give her nationality to the children is as strong as the claim of the father, and on that a fresh difficulty would arise in a very acute form. I hope the right hon. Gentleman, at all events, will not at present give any encouragement to the particular proposal embodied in this Amendment, although I should be grateful for any device that might be brought in to put, as I said, the option of the woman's right to impress her nationality on the family on an equal footing with that of the man.

This Amendment raises a very large question, and I shall not enter upon a discussion of its merits. I simply wish to say that it seems to me that not only are the people of this country affected by this proposal, but all the Dominions throughout the whole of our Empire, and possibly it might to some extent affect relationships with foreign countries. In these circumstances the proposal to deal with a question of such magnitude, in a House, consisting of thirty or forty Members, should not be insisted upon, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, whose moderation and great ability we all recognise, has made a suggestion which seems to be a perfectly reasonable one. I am sure that we shall arrive at a sounder result if we wait until the proposed Committee which is to be set up, has concluded its deliberations.

I am only going to ask two questions upon which, not being a lawyer, I should like to have enlightenment. The right hon. Baronet who proposed this Amendment said that the Home Secretary by this measure deprived women of rights which they had up to now under the Act of 1914. With all due respect, it is hardly fair to say that the opposition to this Bill is not justified if it really is taking away a right which British subjects had, as the right hon. Baronet has suggested. The other question is this: Am I right in imagining that if this Amendment is not accepted, supposing a woman's husband becomes a Turkish subject—for I suppose there is nothing to prevent him taking up Turkish nationality—would she then become a Turkish subject unless she got a special authority from the Home Secretary? It seems an important matter in itself.

I am not aware that I have taken away any rights at all, having regard to what we did on Wednesday. As regards the second point it would be so, for the rule is that a woman takes her husband's nationality, and if she married a Turk——

I do not say married a Turk, but if he became a Turk—took up the Turkish nationality—would she then be so bound?

Not at all; there is a provision made for that in the Act. May I add one word. I give an assurance that the matter will be considered, and it is before the Imperial Conference at this moment. I should regard it as a disaster if, in spite of that, the House insists upon this Amendment.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether a woman will be on the Committee?

Certainly. I hope a woman will be on the Committee.

The right hon. Gentleman said it would be a disaster if the House settled this matter. If he means by that that he does not wish us to have a Division, I am afraid I must ask for a Division.

I meant when I said a disaster that it would be a great pity, when proposals are being submitted to the Imperial Conference, if the matter could not be reserved to be settled by agreement.

May I say that I have listened to this Debate, and I cannot but have considerable sympathy with the Amendment. I think it is one of the natural consequences which flow from the equality of rights, which I have always opposed with regard to the franchise in the case of women, but at the same time the idea of this House, on a Friday sitting, settling a question of this kind, which involves the Dominions as well as ourselves, and settling it in a sparse House of some two dozen Members, is little less than a

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

The House listened last Wednesday with interest and gratitude to the statement of the Home Secretary that the Home Office had made a Regulation that no one of German nationality would be admitted to British citizenship for five years. The object that my Friends and I have in desiring that this new Clause

If the Amendment be carried, how will it affect the Bill?

That does not arise out of this Clause.

It seems to me unwise, if we now proceed to shut the front door, that we should leave a back door open for them to come and invade us. I would like to draw the Home Secretary's attention to the increased precautions which will have to be taken in regard to granting certificates of nationality to neutrals, because we know perfectly well that many Germans have lived in this country for years as Swiss, and may try and become British citizens as soon as the War is over, and I think it will be particularly necessary in regard to anyone claiming Belgian nationality, because in Belgium a great many Germans have naturalised themselves as Belgians, and Belgians, to their bitter regret, know to-day that they returned as the advance guards of the Hun army into Belgium to point out their neighbours and friends for the special attention of the invaders. Although I think it will be some time before the Belgian Government is properly constituted and able to lay its fingers on those who treated their nationality in such a special manner, I hope the Home Secretary will see that those who may apply for British nationality as Belgians will be carefully scrutinised, in order to see whether they are not in fact Germans. Will he also see if he can make the acquirement of British citizenship a little more dignified and ceremonious?

That has nothing to do with this Clause, and I must ask the hon. Member to confine himself to the Clause which he has moved.

I will not proceed with that point, Sir. The German characteristics, which have been specially accentuated in the War, are deceitfulness in peace and cruelty in war, and I think we should be well advised to protect our citizens by preventing people who have displayed those characteristics from availing themselves of the tolerance which they have enjoyed in the past. If the Home Secretary would like to raise the period to seven years I would have no objection, because scientific people tell us that the human form renews all its tissues in seven years, and therefore any German seven years after peace is declared would be physically a new man, and we hope spiritually also, and I am sure the Dominions would not raise any objection if we increased the time to seven years.

I shall be very glad to second the Motion, and I think the one point with which the Mover began his speech is quite sufficient justification for the Clause. I understand the Home Secretary has announced that it is the intention of the present Government that no certificate of naturalisation shall be given to a German for five years after the War. If that is so, I cannot conceive of any reason why it should not be put into this Bill. It is obviously the only real security that that intention of the Government will be carried out. It is quite certain that the announcement of the right hon. Gentleman is one that has given very widespread satisfaction, and I hope he will secure his own intention by putting it beyond the possibility of evaporation by embodying it in this Bill.

I said on Wednesday that we had adopted the general rule at the Home Office that no German shall be naturalised, not only during the War, but during the five years after the War. When I said "the general rule," I had in my mind exceptions of three classes, all of which, I think, will commend themselves to those who propose this Clause. First, British-born subjects, that is, British-born widows of alien enemies. I think it is the universal feeling in the House that a woman who has been married to an alien enemy, but is a widow, and desires to resume her British nationality, should not be deprived of the chance. The second exception which I would make is in favour of men who have served in our Army. I am not going to give any names, of course, but there are men of enemy nationality who are fighting to-day in our Army or the Armies of our Allies. I think there, too, the whole House would wish to make an exception. The third exception I had in my mind was this: persons of what we call friendly races. There are races in enemy countries, such as the German Poles, the Czechs in Austria, the Alsatians in Alsace, and the Lorrainers who are undoubtedly hostile to Germany, and are very willing to help us, and, indeed, are helping us in many ways in the War. Therefore, if we can define that class I should like to make that also an exception. Subject to those three exceptions which I had in my mind when I said "general," I have myself adopted the five years' rule, and naturally I cannot be unwilling to have it confirmed by Parliament. Therefore, if the House thinks it right, I am quite willing to accept the Clause with the addition of the three exceptions to which I have referred. I have drawn some words which, I think, will have that effect, and I am quite prepared to move them. They are:

"But this provision shall not apply to a person who (a) has served in the British Army, or in the Army of any of His Majesty's Allies; (b) is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the German Government; or (c) was at birth a British subject."

Are the words intended to be confined to the Army and not to include the Navy?

I think the Clause before the House is that which is on the Paper. We have not officially before us the Home Secretary's suggestion. Let me say, as far as the Clause on the Paper is concerned, I personally would be disposed to enlarge its operation considerably. I know there is a desire to treat Germans as distinct from Austrians or Turks, or any other nationality fighting against us, but I do not know that this is the way to punish the Germans, particularly in an Amendment to a Bill of this kind, and I would rather suggest to the Home Secretary, when his Amendment to the Clause comes up, that he should add words to the Clause, "or the subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty." Why should we legislate specially for Germans to-day? Even with the proposed Amendment of the Home Secretary an Austrian will still be able to get his nationality within five years. I hope the Home Secretary will be good enough to adopt my suggestion. With regard to his suggested Amendment, I think probably, so far as two of the exceptions are concerned, there is a good deal to be said for them, but I am not at all so sure about the third suggestion. To make an exception simply because a person may happen to belong to a section of the community nominally in an enemy country, although that particular section of the community may foe favourable to us in this War, is, I think, rather wide. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman ought to extend that so far as he has suggested, and I hope he will consider the question of extending this provision to subjects of all countries at present at war with His Majesty.

I regret very much that it has been proposed to incorporate this in the Bill, for the following reasons. I yield to no one in my detestation of many of the acts of the enemy committed in the present War, but I do think it is most unwise to incorporate this in a Bill. The Home Office has the power at present, but if you put these things in an Act it seems to me that you will cripple this country in any peace negotiations. This is not a war measure, as the Home Secretary told us, but it is to be a permanent measure. Yet, before the peace negotiations are begun, we are going out of our way to penalise ourselves. It will probably lead to retaliation, and we have nothing for it. We do not take away the power by not putting it in the Bill. The Home Secretary has still that power and the country has still that power, but to put it in a Bill seems to me most unwise. It is a power that should be left, just as any other power with regard to raw materials, the economic weapon and many other powers, which may be of great service to this country and the Allies when we come to discuss peace negotiations. It seems to me most unwise to incorporate it in this Bill. I admit it is very difficult to think of this measure without regard to German facts, but we have to project our minds and realise that we are drawing up a Bill for all nationalities. We desire, I hope, to see, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for East Fife has stated, a "clean peace," and, therefore, we should go into negotiations with our hands free, and not penalise ourselves by putting into a measure something which may affect our power to negotiate, and which, I believe, will very materially prejudice us in such negotiations. Therefore, would it not be wiser, whilst still retaining this power, not to incorporate it in a measure? We also look forward to a reformed Germany after the War. I beg to enter a protest against the Amendment.

I do not suppose that we want any Germans for a period of five years after the War naturalised in respect of the cases mentioned or some similar cases. I should not imagine that any German would wish to be naturalised here. I do not think, therefore, that this particular new Clause is going to do any harm. At the same time, I think there are considerable objections to having the suggested Amendments put to us in this way. It is quite impossible—and it only illustrates what I said at the beginning—to follow exactly what they mean; and it is very inconvenient that we have not had a little more time and had these Amendments on the Paper. It is quite obvious that the Home Secretary, who is a most accomplished draftsman, and in whose skill in this matter everyone in the House has the greatest confidence, has made one slip already. He has left out the Navy.

I think not. The Amendment which I will propose deals with the forces.

Really, this matter, I think, has been dealt with in a somewhat hurried way.

My hon. Friend will for give me. The Amendment which I read to the House refers to the Allies.

I do not want to revert to the question which has already been discussed, but all the same a German woman who marries will have that preferential point of being able to become a British subject in spite of this being on the Statute Book. Therefore, she does not require a certificate of naturalisation; she gets in in spite of the Clause. It would be very much more satisfactory if we could have had a little more time to consider what is meant. The Amendments are not on the Paper. They are thrown across the floor of the House, and it is really impossible to follow what alterations are made. Perhaps the Homo Secretary is satisfied. I am sure the Committee are not.

I myself think that this Amendment is about the best part of the whole Bill. The Bill is very anæmic, and has very little in it beyond the five years' provision. We do not want to have any of these naturalisation certificates granted to Germans. I deprecate the kind of argument which, like the hon. Member for Coventry, says, "I am in favour of doing something; I am all in favour of their not being allowed here and of the Home Secretary not giving them certificates of naturalisation, but I dislike so and so." I have great confidence in the present Home Secretary, but he cannot bind his successors. Therefore we want this matter put into the Bill. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry says you may have a reformed German in time of peace.

Hear, hear!

So you may. When he has reformed we shall pass a new Act of Parliament. This does not in the least prevent us. I shall look forward with pleasure to the hon. Member for Coventry getting up in the House and describing the reformation which has taken place, and then proposing that he shall go back to old times, and shake hands. So long, however, as the Germans have not expatiated the foul crimes against humanity and international law which they have committed it is only right that every opportunity should be taken by this House of showing, by the Acts it passes, that we are not going to allow them to come within the ordinary comity of the nations.

I should like to support what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy has said. I wish to see the Amendment extended so as to include the members of all the nations who are fighting against us at present. I cannot see any particular cause why, after the War, we should allow the naturalisation of Bulgarians and Turks within the next five years. I agree with my right hon. Friend also in what he said about the third exception read to us by the Home Secretary. I really cannot see any particular advantage in throwing the door open to Poles and Czechs during the next five years. They are members of nations who are now against us and they might well wait for the five years.

I am in doubt as to the inclusion or exclusion of some of these words. I would like to ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether, if we pass these words "any German subject"——

We do not pass these words or any other words at the moment. All we pass is that the Clause be read a second time. Then it is open to Amendment.

I beg to move to leave out the words "German subject," and to insert instead thereof the words "subject of a country which at the time of the passing of this Act was at war with His Majesty."

I hope my right hon. Friend will, if he cannot accept the exact words, will accept the principle, which seems to me necessary in order to add to the value of the provision.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I rather hope the Home Secretary will not accept this Amendment. I think it good not to draw a distinction between Germans on the one hand and Austrians, Hungarians, Turks, and Bulgarians on the other. The crimes which have excited our abhorrence have been mostly committed by the Germans. On the whole, Austrians have treated British subjects in Austria fairly well.

But what about the War?

She had a leading hand in the War, but we are speaking of national characteristics and not of individual persons. I am not sure it would be wise to have a Clause of this sort. And so put all enemy countries precisely on a par. It must be remembered that this Clause does not in any way affect any person who comes from those countries to this country after the War, for in any case it takes five years' residence in this country to qualify at all for naturalisation. It does not affect, either, any person except those resident in the United Kingdom at the present time, and, therefore, here before the War. It will only affect persons who were Turkish subjects, or Austrians, or Hungarians, naturalised here during the War, and before the War. No one else would be qualified for naturalisation, and I deprecate the extension of the Clause in the way proposed.

I very much hope the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment. Surely if we adopt the position of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland we shall dishearten our Allies. Take the case of the Serbians which I have mentioned. They have been in no way better treated by the Bulgarians than the Germans treated the Belgians. There have been no more hideous and infernal atrocities in the world than those committed by the Bulgarians on the Serbians, and now they are going to decimate the whole population in order to collar their rations. If we are going to differentiate in the degree of crime between the Prussians, Bavarians, and Bulgarians, then I am afraid we are opening up a prospect which is anything but pleasing. We are on perfectly logical ground if we say that no subject of any nation we are at present fighting should be naturalised for five years. That is a simple line to take. We do not want a lot of Prussians coming over here and pretending that they are Austrians. They will all be saying that they are Austrians, and personally I do not think there is much to choose between an Austrian and a Prussian.

But it would not apply to anyone who comes over after the War.

We have got quite enough of them here now, for there are hundreds and thousands roaming about in this country. How can we say that an Austrian is kind, when his ally, the Prussian, is sinking our hospital ships? Our enemies must all stand or fall together, like we have to do with our Allies.

I want to support what has just fallen from the hon. Member for Pontefract (Mr. Booth). I am quite sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland (Mr. Samuel) will see on further consideration that it is quite impossible to draw a distinction between one of His Majesty's enemies and another. The case of Bulgaria has been mentioned. What about the conduct of the Turks in Armenia, and their treatment of the garrison at Kut? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland has pointed out that the Amendment will undoubtedly not operate in the way it is intended, and I suggest to the Home Secretary that it might be possible in another place to add words to the effect that for the purpose of naturalisation residence shall only count from a period after the signing of peace. Then we should be postponing naturalisation in the case of every citizen of an enemy country for five years after the termination of the War, which is the intention of the Amendment. I hope the Home Secretary will consider that further point, and I am sure we are indebted to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland for pointing out this effect.

There is a great deal in what has been said on this point, but it is very difficult to deal with these matters in an Act of Parliament. Undoubtedly there has been great cruelty on the part of others of our enemies besides the Germans, and especially the Turks, and I do not think we could very well justify making any difference between a German and a Turk. Notwithstanding what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland, I think it would be wise to make this Clause apply to all enemy countries, but if this is done I must adhere to my exception in favour of friendly races, because the acceptance of this Amendment makes the case all the stronger. In Germany the men of friendly race are few, but in Turkey and Austria this is a more important matter. Take the Armenians and the Syrians and some other races. I am sure hon. Members would not like to shut out those races.

I understand the right hon. Gentleman has put some words in to protect the position of the married woman.

Only widows who are natural-born British subjects.

May I call the Home Secretary's attention to the very important point put before us by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland as to a person under the present law not being able to naturalise for five years? If that is so, will the right hon. Gentleman put some Amendment in this Clause extending the time, say, to seven years?

When the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland speaks of five years' residence he is really wrong. What is required is five years' residence not in this country, but in His Majesty's Dominions, and a man only needs to reside one year in this country and four years in Canada or Hong Kong or any other British Dominion.

I desire to thank my right hon. Friend for having accepted the Amendment moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy (Sir H. Dalziel). All the arguments have been on the side of accepting this Amendment. I was surprised to hear the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cleveland offer any objection. Surely he has not forgotten the butchery of hundreds of thousands of Armenians by the Turks, or the atrocities perpetrated by the Bulgarians, or the brutal acts of warfare perpetrated by the Austrians! I have perhaps more personal friends in. Austria than any other hon. Member of this House, but I confess that after all that has happened during the last four years I do not think any course we can take would be too strong to give expression to our condemnation of all the inhuman barbarities and disregard of all international law which the whole of the enemies who are waging war against us have been guilty. I, therefore, welcome the acceptance by my right hon. Friend of this Amendment, and I feel certain he will not object to the addition relating to friendly aliens suggested by the Home Secretary.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the words,

"but this provision shall not apply to a person who

(a) has served in His Majesty's forces, or in the forces of any of His Majesty's Allies;

(b) is a member of a race or community known to be opposed to the enemy Governments; or

(c) was at birth a British subject."

I shall be glad if any improvement of this Amendment can be suggested, but it seems to me to carry out what most hon. Members desire.

I think we ought to respond to the appeal of the Home Secretary in this matter. He has met us in what, I think, was a wider and more important question than is raised in his new Amendment. I confess that I should like Amendment (b), which raises the question of friendly aliens, inquired into, but I presume there will be some deep scrutiny in the future, more than there has been in the past, with regard to anyone obtaining that position. Personally, I see no need at all for any burning desire to make British subjects of the subjects even of the friendly portions of an enemy country, and I think we ought to be more careful in the future than in the past. I would like to ask the Home Secretary what does the term "forces" cover? Does it apply to military forces only, or does it apply to, say, the police force—special constables, and so on?

"Military" includes the naval and air forces.

With that exception we might accept it, but it occurred to me that if it included special constables they might be kept very busy at the Home Office after the War.

I would like to say one or two words indicating how thoroughly I agree with what has fallen from my right hon. Friend. I do not want to labour the question of this Clause, otherwise I would like to press my objection to this particular part of the Home Secretary's Amendment relating to friendly races. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that it is perfectly unintelligible to find this intense anxiety to manufacture British subjects. Why, in the world, should we do so? It is a very great privilege, and ought to be so regarded, and I feel confident that any German, Pole, Alsatian, or Czech, or an Italian in Austria, would not consider it a grievance if he had to wait for five years to obtain British citizenship when he had to wait a lifetime to acquire citizenship in his own country. I regret that my right hon. Friend has thought it necessary to put in this particular provision, because it opens the door to very great doubt as to whether these provisions will be carried out by the Home Office—I do not say by my right hon. Friend, but by the Home Office—with the stringency the country desires. There are heaps and heaps of poisonous Huns in all these friendly nations. Alsatians have been the worst spies used by the Germans in this War. They have tried to fill Alsace and Lorraine with their own German blood, and the difficulty of determining whether a man, either from Alsace or Lorraine, is German in sympathy or pro-Ally would be exceedingly great, and if the mere fact that a man belongs to one of these friendly races is to be taken as a sufficient reason for granting him as a matter of course a certificate of naturalisation it will go far to defeat the purpose of this provision. On the whole, it is a very great gain to get this Clause accepted, and we are grateful to the Home Secretary for having done so. Even with that flaw in it, I think it is a very valuable addition to the Bill.

I hope very much that the Home Secretary will adhere to his second exception, and I will give the House what, I think, is an instance affording a reason for it. If you take the case of the Armenians you will find that a million of them have been massacred on account of their friendliness to this country. In the last few months all the fighting which has been done on the Caucasus Front on our side has been almost wholly done by Armenians. Many of these are Turkish subjects. Are you, after the War, going to tell a Turkish Armenian who has lived, perhaps, three or four years before the War in this country, and who comes along, having completed his time, desiring to be naturalised, that, in spite of all that his race has done, you do not consider him fit to be naturalised because he has had the misfortune to be born under Turkish tyranny? There is nothing in this Clause which compels you to naturalise a man of one of these enemy countries even if he belongs to the friendly races or communities. You have to investigate his particular case, and if you find that his case absolutely fits him for naturalisation, it would be a real cruelty to tell the man that because he was born under the alien Government, you refuse to help him. Therefore, I very much hope that the Home Secretary will adhere to this exception.

I should like to join in the expression of gratitude and appreciation to the Home Secretary for what he has just done. After one's experience of these things, it is very acceptable to get more than you ask for in an Amendment to a Bill, but I would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman to put in a fourth proviso on this particular point. Would he institute a language test about these aliens who are coming to join us here? There are many German subjects and others who have become British subjects who did not even take the trouble to learn our own language, and, as I mentioned in Committee the other day, in one of the elections which was held in the City of London there were any number of people for whose benefit the election addresses had to be put in their own language because they did not speak English. We should be gratified if the Home Secretary would assure us that people who aspire to the great privilege of British citizenship should have to think it worth while to learn the language of this country, and it would content the public mind and make this Bill even more popular than it is already.

I suggest to the Home Secretary that the words he has just put in, "by birth a British subject," may be worthy of some consideration. For one thing, it is new in naturalisation law, and if it is intended to meet the case of a woman it does not entirely do so. Under the Act of 1914, in the case of a woman who was a British subject previously to her marriage to an alien, and whose husband has died or whose marriage has been dissolved, the Home Secretary may grant a certificate of naturalisation. But she is not necessarily a British subject at birth, and I submit to his consideration that it may extend to a very considerable class of people we have not contemplated. I doubt very much whether a woman who was born in Canada before the Act of 1914 was passed would have been a British subject at birth under that Act, and I am not sure that you ought to limit this provision to women who were actually born British subjects. The provision of 1914 was "if she had been a British subject before her marriage," then she should have this Tight to obtain British nationality, but to throw it back to the time of her birth is not altogether fair. For example, an American who came over here and became naturalised might marry an alien. If she was divorced she would, under the present law, have the right to say that she wished at once to become a British subject. If the words that the Home Secretary proposes are put in, they will lose that right. You are therefore taking away a certain right in these cases, and there is no reason for doing so. There is no reason for the postponement for five years, because there is no question about Germans or anything else. It is purely a question how you are going to deal with these women who were British subjects before, and who had the rights of British subjects whatever their country of birth might have been.

There is a disadvantage in discussing extremely complicated matters of this sort without having the Amendment in black and white before us, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will give consideration to the question before the Bill reaches another place. There is, in particular, one point which deserves his consideration. He speaks of those who have been serving in His Majesty's Forces or the forces of His Majesty's Allies. I have always understood, although we have the fullest possible co-operation of the United States, and although we all know how much the cause of the Allies owes in these days to the splendid gallantry of the American troops, that, as a matter of international law, America is not an Ally, because she has not entered into any treaty or alliance with ourselves, France, and the other countries who are bound together by treaty in the War. My right hon. Friend clearly intends to include those who have served in the American Army, just as he does those who have served in the Armies of France and Italy. Obviously that ought to be so, and I suggest to him that he should consider whether the term "Allies" is the right term to use.

The words in the Amendment of the right hon. Gentleman are "race or community opposed to the enemy." I think that the phrase "opposed to" is a very doubtful one. What we really want to indicate is a nationality or community that is held in subjection by the enemy and is alien to them. If you say "opposed to," one wonders whether it is active or passive opposition that is required. That, therefore, is another matter, which I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider before the Bill reaches another place.

I am very grateful for the suggestions that have been made. The House will understand that when I propose an Amendment to an Amendment I cannot very well put it upon the Paper, because I want to hear what the hon. Member who proposes the Amendment has to say before I can know whether I can accept it at all. With regard to what the hon. Member for the Wirral Division (Mr. Stewart) said, I may point out that anyone who applies for naturalisation must have an adequate knowledge of the English language, and, with regard to what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North St. Pancras (Sir W. Dickinson) said, I should have thought that a woman born in Canada was a British subject. I think that is so under the Act of 1914.

Yes; but I was dealing with women born before 1914.

I will consider the point. I quite agree that the position of the United States ought to be considered, and we will have, it looked into. The same applies to the words "opposed to" with regard to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Devizes Division (Mr. Peto) has raised some question.

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3, a), to leave out the word "overt."

I recognise that the Secretary of State does reserve certain powers to himself under this Bill as to whether or not when a certificate is being revoked the case shall be referred to a Committee to be set up specially. I am perfectly convinced that for all practical purposes there will be an appeal allowed in every case, and that no certificate of naturalisation will be revoked before the holder of it has had a chance of putting his case before the tribunal.

If it will assist my hon. and gallant Friend, I may say that I propose to accept this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3, a), after the word "be," to insert the words "disaffected or."

I will accept this Amendment.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (3), at the end of paragraph (f), to add the words "and has not so far as lies within his power severed his connection with that State."

This Amendment touches a very difficult and serious subject, namely, the evil of double nationality. I propose to make an addition to the Amendment which was accepted from my hon. Friend the Member for the Luton Division (Mr. Harmsworth) in Committee. The object of his Amendment was to exclude what I may call double-dealers in the matter of nationality—persons who pretend to take up British nationality, but who really desire for some sinister purpose at the same time to retain their foreign allegiance. One is bound to sympathise with that object. Certainly I sympathise with it very fully, and if that were all that were in the Amendment nobody would differ from the hon. Member. I wish, however, to amend his words, because I think they go very far beyond the evil which he has in mind, and will endanger the naturalisation certificate of thousands of entirely loyal persons, not because of any act or omission on their part, but because of the claim of the Government to which they formerly belonged to retain them, very likely utterly and entirely against their will. If war breaks out between their former Government and this country, their certificate may be in jeopardy, although they may have been British subjects for a great many years, and have done everything that they could to get free from their old citizenship and to do their duty to the country. If an outcry should arise that all men of such-and-such country must be denaturalised, it may be very difficult for the Home Secretary of those days to avoid doing so. I suggest that there are certificates which ought not to be put in jeopardy unless the holders themselves have committed some act or have been guilty of some omission which justifies it.

My object, therefore, is to ensure that punishment should be reserved for those cases in which some punishment has been deserved. The Clause as it now stands touches the question of double nationality, but only a very small part of that problem. There are thousands of persons who have a double nationality by birth. There are thousands of children born in this country who are British subjects by English law and foreign subjects by the law of the country from which their parents came, probably by the law of almost every other country in the world. There are others who have a double nationality on account of naturalisation and through no fault of their own. They have desired to be British subjects, while the country from which they came still insists upon holding them. These people may be excellent citizens here and be doing their duty to this country. I have in mind the case of a young Armenian who is now fighting in the British Army. He is a British subject by British law, but he is also a Turkish subject owing to the form of Turkish law. I have that on high authority. That is a case of double nationality by birth, but exactly the same thing may happen by naturalisation.

The Clause as it stands would only affect a small number of those Germans who have become naturalised in this country. Most people who have spoken at all about the question of double nationality have had in their minds a desire to exclude from British nationality Germans who still retain their German nationality. That is a proposal with which I entirely sympathise. But I would point out that the Clause as it stands will only apply to a very few Germans. The German law as it used to be did not retain German nationality for any of those who were naturalised here, and the German law as it is now—at any rate, so I am told; I do not profess to be an authority on German law—does not claim to retain as a German citizen any person naturalised in this country unless that person has obtained special permission beforehand to retain his German nationality. Therefore, the Clause as it stands will only affect quite a small number of those who were formerly Germans. But it will affect practically all those who were formerly Turkish or Bulgarian or Austrian subjects. That is a much more serious matter, because the laws of those countries seek to retain as their citizens the whole of their people who become naturalised elsewhere. Moreover, we have to remember the effect the Clause may have in the case of war breaking out with countries with which we are now at peace. Let me mention, for instance, that according to Swiss law a Swiss citizen who becomes naturalised here does not cease to be a Swiss citizen. The same applies to Greek law, and, most important of all, to Russian law. Russian subjects are naturalised in this country—Poles and others—by tens of thousands. I believe there are more Russian subjects than any other subjects naturalised in this country. But Russia claims to retain every one of them as a Russian citizen unless he has obtained special permission from the Russian Government to drop his citizenship. Therefore, this Clause would affect every Austrian Czech and every Pole who has been naturalised, and, in the event of war between us and the country now friendly or neutral, would affect the people who come from that friendly or neutral country.

My personal interest in the matter is chiefly with regard to those friendly races living under Turkish or other domination. They cannot divest themselves of Turkish nationality without permission. After incurring the anger of the Turkish Government by becoming citizens here, after incurring serious danger to any property they may have in Turkey and to their lives if they should return to Turkey, and also danger to the lives and property of their relatives by becoming British citizens, on the outbreak of war are they, by this Bill, to be put in danger or deprived of British nationality, not through any act or omission of their own, but simply because the Turkish Government seeks to hold them? The same would apply to Poles and Czechs. It may be said that the law would not be enforced against these people. If that is so, it is only right to express in this Clause exactly what we propose to do, and to make it clear that the certificate shall not be endangered except by some act or omission of the grantee. The other provisions of this Clause are all on the lines that a man, if he forfeits his certificate, is to forfeit it because of some act or omission on his part. This provision, on the other hand, simply renders the certificate in jeopardy because of the act of the Government to which he formerly belonged. It may even be because of some law passed in that country since he ceased to be a citizen of that country. There is no danger whatever in recognising that a man is entitled to remain a citizen if he has done everything in his power to get rid of his former allegiance. The Clause as I propose to amend it will read:

"The Secretary of State may by Order revoke a certificate … in any case in which he is satisfied that the person to whom the certificate was granted … (f) remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status and has not so far as lies within his power severed his connection with that State."

Therefore, if the man has not done what he could to sever his connection with his old State his certificate may be annulled, but if he has done everything in his power to sever that connection he would not be culpable and he would not be liable to have his certificate put in danger if my Amendment were accepted.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope it will be accepted. Everyone knows that the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Mr. A. Williams) has been honourably associated with the work on behalf of the Armenians who have suffered from the butchery and cruelty of the Turks. The addition of those words would not in any way weaken the Clause, yet it would provide for such cases as those to which my hon. Friend referred, where an alien desired to be a British subject, but, owing to the antiquated laws which prevail in his original country, is prevented from getting a naturalisation certificate. In addition, it would also prevent the revocation of certificates when the individuals themselves desired to be loyal British subjects.

I hope the Home Secretary will not accept the addition of these words. If the law of the country stipulates that naturalisation here does not lessen or affect a man's being a subject of that country as well, nothing that the person can do can alter that fact, and therefore, to say that you waive the operation of the provision which my hon. Friend (Mr. Harmsworth) got introduced in Committee, and to say that if a man tries to do what he could not possibly do what the laws of the country from which he came prevented him from doing then this other provision shall be made, is to make an absolute farce of the other provision, and therefore I sincerely hope that if the right hon. Gentleman will not accept an Amendment which really destroys the efficacy of the Amendment accepted in Committee. I do not yield to my hon. Friend (Mr. Williams) in my sympathy with the suffering Armenian race and every other race that is treated as they have been, but we must have adequate protection in this country from the danger that arises from the residence in our midst of aliens.

I usually find myself in very full agreement with my hon. Friend (Mr. Williams), because I know his intentions are always of the best, but I sincerely trust that the Home Secretary will not accept the Amendment, because it seems to me to whittle down the whole purpose of this Sub-clause and reduce it a nullity. There are subjects of enemy countries who are individually friendly to us. We have endeavoured to meet their case in one or two points, although I think always with very serious danger of a misuse of those facilities. But in this case the Amendment is so far-reaching that if we accepted it, we really might as well leave out the Sub-clause that I moved. It was agreed the other day that if we had such a Sub-clause as this in our Naturalisation Act, it should in future serve as a lever in order to persuade other countries to bring their law of naturalisation into accord with ours. Where a foreign State permits its subjects to hold their original status and to acquire, as I think fraudulently, in every case the status of naturalisation in another country——

Not at all. It is perfectly right.

Only not fraudulently in the sense that the law of our country understands what is going on. But as against the essence of naturalisation it is virtually disingenuous and fraudulent. We trust that by having such a provision in our naturalisation law we shall bring it home to foreign States that they must no longer permit their subjects to enjoy a double nationality. I have no intention of traversing the arguments of the other evening, but I adhere very strongly to my own view that in this matter we come to the very root and essence of the whole question of naturalisation, and that if we admit in our Acts of Parliament the possibility of dual naturalisation we are making a very great mistake. I earnestly trust that the right hon. Gentleman will not accept the Amendment and will support the provision accepted the other evening.

This is a question of real difficulty. The man the hon. Member has in mind is, of course, a man who has done all he can to sever himself from the foreign State. It is true that the paragraph we are now discussing will not hit the German as a rule. It will hit the Austrian of unfriendly race, it will probably hit the Bulgarian, and it will hit the Turk. That might induce one to look on the Amendment with a favourable eye. At the same time I feel great difficulty the other way. On the face of the Amendment, reading it with the paragraph, it means that if a man has ineffectively taken steps to sever himself from his native country he may remain a subject of this country, because the whole paragraph is based upon this: that his own country does not regard naturalisation here as freeing him from his original national status. Under the Amendment he will have done everything he can to get out of it, but he will not have succeeded. Therefore he remains a man with a double nationality. He is a British subject here, but in his native country he is a subject of that country. I feel great difficulty, therefore, in accepting the Amendment. At all events, we ought very much more carefully to consider the words which are suggested. I think there are formal methods by which a man may, even in Austria, renounce his civil rights. If I can find anything of that kind which can be definitely fixed upon one would consider it, but it would be rather dangerous to accept any general reference to severing connection. I do not think I can accept the Amendment to-day. I will consider it with a view to discussion in another place, but the Government will not, even in another place, accept words of this kind without very careful consideration, and, of course, if they are put in they will have to be further discussed here. My present view is entirely against the Amendment.

I am glad the right hon. Gentleman has seen his way to give an assurance that he will consider the matter further, because I cannot help thinking those who think there are great dangers in this doctrine of dual nationality have got hold of something like a mare's nest. They seem to regard it as being some device of a hostile State by means of which they will plant their citizens upon this country while retaining some power of directing their activities against the interests of Great Britain.

Is the hon. Member speaking of anything I have said? I am not thinking of that at all, although it is possible. I am only referring to the absurdity of a person being a subject of one State and of another State at the same time.

What about the Delbrück law?

The Delbrüch law does not begin the history of the matter. The history of the matter begins in the fact that the Sovereigns of a great number of foreign States, as our own country did up to the beginning of the nineteenth century, maintain this doctrine of permanent allegiance. You were born a subject of the British Crown and you had no right to divest yourself of your allegiance to the Crown. While that doctrine held you could not get away from dual nationality. That is the law which I understand prevails in Russia and in Italy. Under these circumstances it is really rather hard on a man, who may wish on perfectly bonâ fide grounds to come and be a citizen of the United Kingdom, to be estopped, not from anything which he has done but simply because the law of his native country does not give him a right to divest himself of his allegiance to the ruler in whose territory he was born. That, of course, is treating the subject as the personal property and chattel of the ruler. That is the difficulty in which you are placed. It is not any question of the Delbrück law, which cut down this doctrine of permanent allegiance and preserved it only in special cases. This original mediaeval doctrine is a doctrine of the greatest difficulty for these people at the present time, and if there is any means by which they can renounce their civil rights when they have done everything in their power to show their sincere desire, it is very desirable that words should be inserted so as to prevent unfair and unjust treatment of people who may be perfectly proper citizens of the British Empire.

As I understood the statement of the Home Secretary, he entirely agrees with the view that no man ought to be allowed to have a double nationality, and I understood his promise only goes so far as to see whether he could find words which would alleviate certain cases, while at the same time maintaining that general principle. If my hon. Friend can do that, he will be a most wonderful draftsman and a most wonderful lawyer. This Amendment goes to the whole question of the root of naturalisation. Can a man have two nationalities?

Many men are born with two.

The sooner we put an end to it the better. We do not want to make double nationalities. This Amendment is asking us to manufacture dual nationalities.

It is not asking you to manufacture them. It is only asking that where you have manufactured them you will not, perhaps twenty years afterwards, undo that.

We want to get rid of dual nationalities. It is a most dangerous thing that a man should be in this country at the present time owing allegiance to the Sovereign of this country and allegiance to the Sovereign of Germany—an impossible position when war arises, and I think it is an utterly improper position at any time. It is said that the Germans, by reason of the recent law, have no difficulty in their case, because they do not insist upon retaining the nationality of their subjects. They can alter that law again, but we have laid it down as a broad principle that, as far as we as a nation are concerned, we will not admit it, that will go a long way to prevent the Germans from enacting any law that would prevent their former citizens in this country becoming naturalised. In the same way those countries that keep up this right of retaining control of the allegiance of their former citizens will be much more carfeul in regard to the matter when they know that this country no longer allows this. They will not wish their citizens to be in this country in an inferior position in any way, and they will know that it does them no good. I think it is an immense advantage to lay down the principle that we are only to have one nationality. You cannot serve two masters, no matter how you try, and I believe that the Home Secretary will find it very difficult to frame any words, or any form of law, which will enable him to interfere with the law of a foreign country in this respect.

I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the difficulties the Home Secretary will find if he tries to do what he says he is going to do. Unless I have read this Bill wrong, I think the words in the Amendment are unnecessary, because apparently the Bill simply says that the Home Secretary may revoke a certificate if the man

"remains a subject of a State at war with His Majesty that does not regard naturalisation within the British Empire as extinguishing his original national status."

If that be so, it leaves a discretion for the Home Secretary. The point raised in the Amendment is one of the things that would weigh with the Home Secretary in exercising his discretion. If he finds that in a certain case a man has done everything possible to get rid of his nationality, that would be one of the eases in which the Home Secretary would exercise his discretion to allow that man to continue his naturalisation certificate. I do not know whether that is so, but it seems to be quite clearly a case of discretion.

It all depends upon whether "may" means "shall."

It seems to me that in this particular case "may" obviously means "may," and it is entirely at the Home Secretary's discretion. I dissent from the view put forward by the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Carson), who seems to be performing that old device so well known of putting into the Home Secretary's mouth things he really did not intend. He seems to suggest that this disposes finally of the double nationality question. I do not think it does anything of the sort. I think it simply gives the Home Secretary discretion in cases where there is a double nationality through no fault of the person who claims naturalisation to decide one way or the other. In that case I should have thought he would decide in favour of the claimant. I cannot understand what the hon. Member for Barnsley (Sir J. Walton) means by talking about this Amendment, which is a perfectly serious Amendment, as reducing the whole thing to a farce. He seems to think we are going to run a national danger if a man who wishes to dissociate himself from Turkish citizenship and has done everything in his power to become British is unable, because of some antiquated laws in the Turkish Empire, to become a British subject. It seems to me that this Amendment is not a farce, but it is statements of that sort which amount to a farce.

This Amendment would take away from the Home Secretary the whole power to decide the matter, because it expressly stated that if the person has done all in his power to sever his connection with his previous country he is not under the Act.

I do not think it does anything of the sort, and I do not agree with the hon. Member's views about the Delbrück law. Yesterday people who sat on the Committee gave us a most ludicrous view of the Delbrück law, and gave it as a reason for taking away people's nationality.

That is not true at all. It is ridiculous!

I am not referring to the hon. Gentleman, but I am referring to the hon. Member for York, who gave a view of that law which was absolutely contrary to the fact, and gave it as a reason for taking away a person's citizenship. It is suggested that we are going to run a danger because Turkey says that a person who becomes naturalised here remains a Turk. We run no such danger at all. You must make up your mind what is the frame of mind of the man whom you naturalise. It seems to me that if the person honestly desires to become British you run no risk whatever, and that this Amendment is absolutely unnecessary, because it is clear that the Home Secretary exercises his discretion, and I certainly hope that the present Home Secretary, and any other Home Secretary, before taking away the nationality of people who are really friendly and doing everything they can to become British, will exercise his discretion.

I beg to move, in substituted Clause 7 (2), after the word "specified," to insert the words,

"and in any case to which paragraphs (a), (b), (d), or (f) of this Sub-section applies the Secretary of State shall, by notice given to or sent to the last-known address of the holder of the certificate, give him an opportunity of claiming that the case be referred for such inquiry, and if the holder so claims in accordance with the notice the Secretary of State shall refer the case for inquiry accordingly."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "which" ["case to which"], to insert the words "Subsection (1) or."

I think that this Amendment ought to include those who come under Subsection (l). Appeals are to be granted either under Sub-section (2) in various cases which are specified. I agree with both what is included and what is excluded, so far as that is concerned, but provision ought also to be made for appeal in the case where revocation of the certificate is made on the ground of false representation or concealment of material circumstances. Of course if there has been such false representation or concealment, by all means revoke the certificate, but I do not think it is fair that the certificate should be revoked merely upon the ipsedixit of the Home Secretary, who simply says that material circumstances have been concealed. He must be satisfied in his own mind, but the person affected ought to have the right to have the case inquired into. It is especially bad, because if proceedings are taken under the first Sub-section it involves the assumption that the Home Secretary has decided that the grantee has been or may have been guilty of fraud. That grantee appeals for an inquiry. He says that his case has not been properly investigated. The answer of the Home Secretary will be this: "You come under Sub-section (1). That is, you have either been guilty of fraud or false representation, or concealment of material facts. Consequently, I decline to let you have a further inquiry." The great stigma of fraud may thus be passed upon a man who has also the heavy penalty of losing a valuable privilege. I really think that in that case it is not too much that he should have the right to have his case inquired into by a judicial inquiry, and I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way to give an appeal in this case.

I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

I quite agree that this is a case where inquiry may be needed, and therefore I am willing to give the same right of inquiry. But, while accepting the Amendment, I should point out that it may be necessary to make some changes in the drafting in another place, because in its present form it would read very badly.

I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert the following new Sub-section:

(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.

This Amendment is one which I put down in Committee. I had some hope that the Home Secretary would consider an Amendment on this point before the Report stage. I do not know whether in the very short time which has elapsed he has had an opportunity of considering this. The Home Office should have the power at its own discretion absolutely to assent to an application made by the British-born wife of an alien enemy to resume her British nationality. If that could be done I believe that the Home Secretary would find no small number of cases in which the circumstances would justify him entirely in giving this relief. The hardship endured by many British women who, many years ago, married Germans, has been intense. They never thought that they would find themselves in the position which has arisen during this War. Their husbands may be interned, or may be sent back to Germany, and the question arises whether the women themselves may not be sent to Germany. I cannot help feeling that if the Home Secretary had this power he would find many cases in which he would feel bound to exercise this discretion.

I have thought of this again, and I think it is a matter which the House can well consider. It is a matter which arises during the War, and therefore ought to be considered now. The serious objection to this Amendment is that we are asked to allow a severance of nationality between husband and wife. There is the further objection that the wife might well desire to be a British subject during the War between Great Britain and her husband's country, and that after the War she and her husband, a man of different nationality, might come together again, and that might be a serious matter for her. What we do now in the case of British-born women married to enemy aliens is to relieve them under the Restrictions of Aliens Order, and there are many cases, I think some hundreds, in which British-born women have been so relieved. But there are some eases that deserve to be considered. I am speaking of the woman separated from her husband, who may be fighting against us, and whom she may not have seen perhaps for five or ten years. I have had before me more than one such case, and in such cases where there is really separation between the wife and the husband I think perhaps the Secretary of State might have a discretion. I propose to accept the Amendment of my right hon. Friend, but I wish him to understand that it is only in rare cases that I may find it possible to apply it.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is going to make any alteration in the Amendment or is he going to leave it as it is? Is he going to leave it to the Secretary of State's discretion?

I would like to hear any suggestion my right hon. Friend has to make.

I did not know that you would be likely to accept the Amendment. I had not seen it until I read it this morning on the Paper, and I have not considered any Amendment to it, but this Amendment now proposed seems to me to be opening up a very wide area by leaving the matter entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary. You might have the case of an alien whose certificate had been taken away from him, and whose alien wife might be left in the position in which she would have all the rights and privileges of a British subject—a position which might have serious consequences.

I think we can trust the Home Secretary to use the power given to him in a proper way. It certainly would not be a discreet use of the power to grant certificates of naturalisation in such cases as the right hon. Member for Dublin University suggests. The right hon. Gentleman said that he had not seen this Amendment until today. It was on the Paper in the Committee stage and was discussed, and the Home Secretary promised to give the matter his further consideration. I believe it would be far better to leave the matter to the discretion of the Home Secretary without attempting to fetter it with words. If words were introduced it might have the result of cases being included which perhaps we would rather not include, and, on the other hand, exclude some cases which it would appear very evident ought to be dealt with. Personally, I am quite content to leave it to the Home Secretary for the time being to exercise his discretion.

As I understand it, the Home Secretary accepts the principle of the Amendment but does not actually approve of the way in which it is drafted, but if he accepts it as it is, surely that is not the way to make an Act of Parliament!

I stated that although it would leave me a discretion, it is one which I could only very rarely exercise.

I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that this Amendment should be limited to British-born subjects, and I agree with the right hon. Member for Trinity College that, as it stands, it would be opening the door too widely. It might be that a woman who was a British subject had only got her British naturalisation previously to marrying some man, even a naturalised man. She might even be a German woman who had married a naturalised German, and she would still come under the operation of the Amendment.

I should not object to the words "British-born."

I suggest, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "British" ["if she was a British subject"], to insert the word "born."

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "was" ["was a British subject"], to insert the words "by birth."

It would then read, "shall be lawful for his wife if she was at birth a British subject." The Amendment comes in there better, I think, than at the point suggested by the hon. Member.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment, which would enable the bonâ-fide British woman to make a declaration that she desires to resume her British nationality. The only point on which I wish to ask the Home Secretary a question is whether the words are really the right words to use. I take it that we all mean the same thing.

This point of retention of nationality is dealt with by Section 7A.

Before we pass this Bill, I should like to inquire as to whether the Home Secretary is prepared to make some statement of the administration of the Bill in Ireland. Under present conditions the alien question in Ireland is in grave danger of being forgotten because of enemy questions of other kind, and no one is able to find out who is responsible for the administration of the law. It is sometimes the military authority, sometimes the naval authority, sometimes the Home Secretary himself, sometimes the Chief Secretary, and sometimes the police. I only wish to ask two questions. I believe I am right in saying that any action against the naturalised alien in Ireland has to go the whole way to the Army Council before any decision can be given and the police authorities in various parts of Ireland receive instructions not only from the naval and military authorities and from the Chief Secretary, but sometimes direct from the right hon. Gentleman himself. It would remove an impression of uneasiness if the right hon. Gentleman would give us some assurance that the law will be administered in Ireland as in England, and if those people who desire to see it properly administered may know to whom they should apply when these difficulties arise. I fully recognise that at the present time the conditions are abnormal and I should be the last to suggest that the military authorities should have less power than they have now, but the public generally and the police should understand exactly who is responsible for the administration of this Clause.

Before the Bill is put from the Chair on the Motion for the Third Reading I should like to make a few remarks. May I say that in any observations I have to make I hope the Home Secretary will understand that we all feel very grateful to him for the considerate way in which he has received the various proposals which have been made. At the same time I cannot help reflecting, after sitting here all day, how little the interest in this House in this question compares with the intense feeling outside with regard to aliens. It is really an extraordinary thing to me, and nothing shows me more how little this House is in sympathy with the country than the fact, that here is a Bill that they have been clamouring for all through the country for the last three or four years, more particularly and more vehemently recently, and it is put down for its consideration on two Fridays by the Government and is attended in the Sessions by an average of about fifteen or twenty Members. All I can say is that I do not believe there is at the present moment any question more agitating a nation worn out by the horrors of war and the infamies of enemy belligerents than is the treatment which in the past and at the present time is being meted out to aliens and especially enemy aliens in this country. I cannot help also reflecting upon the fact that after three or four years cogitation upon this subject and after all that has been written and said upon it we should have such a weak and emasculated Bill. I really think we might have had a Bill going to the whole root of this question.

There is one thing I would like to bring before the House. We have been talking a great deal of taking away certificates of naturalisation and of putting people back to their original nationality. One thing you have not touched at all, and that is the ridiculous proposition of our laws, that if a German woman happens to be passing through London and a child is born in one of the hotels, that child is a British subject. So far as I know you have no way of taking away that nationality from it as a British subject. To my mind that is one of the most absurd propositions of law and one of the most absurd remnants in our laws. Is it not extraordinary that after four years of war, during which this thing has been brought before our eyes daily and hourly, we make no provision whatever for it in this Bill? I think, too, that the country is greatly perplexed about the position during the War of naturalised enemy subjects. We had a great deal of excitement at an early stage of the War about enemy aliens who were naturalised being allowed to be members of the Privy Council. After four years cogitation you make no suggestion whatsoever as regards that in your Bill and having passed this great Bill, which is to settle this question during the War without any discussion whatsoever, you still lay down that to His Majesty's Council can be summoned a German, an Austrian, a Turk, a Bulgarian or anybody else so long as he is made a Privy Councillor. For my own part, I think that is all wrong.

You have not touched the question of enemy aliens in this House who have been naturalised. I do not know if there are any here in the House, but I hope they will not be offended. I think they ought not to be here, and I say it openly. The absurdity of our allowing, once war breaks out, men who were of German origin to come in and legislate here as regards the War or as regards the terms of peace, makes a pantomime of legislation and I tell you why I say so. Nothing will persuade me that if I had been twenty years in Germany I would not have had exactly the same feelings towards this country as I have now. I believe you cannot get it out of your blood. It is there. It has come down from century to century, and there it is, and to go and bring in legislation and pass it without dealing with these matters is, I think, very regrettable. There is something more the country is interested in as regards this question of naturalisation, and that is the number of naturalised aliens in our public offices. The country has an idea, and I am not sure that there is not some foundation for it, that some of the heads of offices like to keep them there. They may have good reasons, but I am perfectly certain that, whatever the House may think, the nation is entirely opposed to allowing into our munition works or into our various offices connected with the War, any persons who are naturalised and who have been of enemy origin. Besides, we constantly hear of large contracts being given out to naturalised alien enemies. Only the other day my hon. Friend told us of a large contract which had been given to Weiner, an Austrian naturalised subject. I hope he has since looked up the history of this gentleman, which has been sent to me, but this is not the time to go into that. These are the kinds of instances which make the country doubtful of the earnestness of the Government in really wishing to take full advantage of the circumstances created by the War to get rid of this penetration by alien enemies into the very vitals of this country in carrying on business, and especially business in relation to the War, and I hope the Home Secretary will assure us that this is not the last Bill on the subject that we are going to have. I think he would do a very good work if he would try and have the whole of this subject put upon some satisfactory basis, because what people are asking themselves is this: "If you allow these people, when naturalised, to hold these positions during the War, what belief can we have in your pledges that you are not going to allow ever again the same penetration as we had before?" The people are determined more and more to have the British Empire for the British people, not in the sense of wishing in the slightest degree to be hostile to those who come amongst us, but they have got to distrust German, Austrian, and foreign methods in relation to business. Their eyes have been opened, and they are not going in the future, as they did in the past, to allow foreigners or aliens, by their particular methods, which are not our methods, to try and monopolise and intrigue themselves into positions and businesses in this country which they have no right to as against our own people.

I desire to associate myself with the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend who has just sat down. I thank the Home Secretary and the Government for this Bill. I could have wished it was a stronger Bill, but I recognise that it does go a considerable way in the direction which we have advised for a long time past. The Bill is weak in one or two particulars. It is weak, I think, in assuming that every person naturalised since the War broke out should continue to be a British subject unless something definite against him is brought forward. I would have approached the matter from another standpoint and said that all Germans naturalised since the outbreak of war should cease to be British subjects at once and should only be readmitted if the case was overwhelmingly in the national interest. Who are these persons? These are people who have lived amongst us in some oases for twenty or thirty years, and made huge fortunes in this country, and never thought it worth their while to pay for the privilege by becoming a British subject. I honour them if they did not feel that they could throw off their own nationality, but I speak with contempt of men who, having lived in this country and refused to take advantage of its citizenship, the very moment they find themselves in a difficulty come to the British Government and wish to be made British citizens. There is no patriotism about that. It is simply making use of this country for their own ends, and that is why I say that every person who was naturalised at the outbreak of war is in quite a different category from the person who, twenty or thirty years ago, took up his citizenship in this country.

This Bill, if it does nothing else, ought, I think, to remove all this sloppy sentiment which we have heard about naturalisation papers. We hear them spoken of as if they were some great charter which this country had conferred upon deserving people, and to interfere with which in any way would almost be in the category of the Belgian treaty with Germany. We have to-day, by this Bill, broken all idea of that kind. They became citizens of this country in many cases wrongly, not being free of their own nationality. They got it under misrepresentation in many cases, and their own laws prevented them from becoming whole-heartedly British subjects, and by this Bill we are giving power to the Home Secretary practically to revoke naturalisation under certain conditions and for certain reasons. I venture, to say that, in my opinion, not 5 per cent. of the Germans naturalised in this country have been naturalised because they hated German militarism and the system under which they were born, and that the remaining 95 per cent. became naturalised purely for business reasons and business convenience. If there is anyone I sympathise with today it is the German in this country—a naturalised subject, if you like who, having been born in Germany, and having lived to man's estate, and judged of the reasons that governed the policy of the Germans in the past, and having made up his mind that he was opposed to all that, and solemnly declared that he wished to cease to be a German subject, finds himself naturalised here at this time, and loyal, I doubt not, to this country.

I sympathise with that man, but they are a very small proportion. Ninety-five per cent. of the Germans who are naturalised here—I say it advisedly—are men who obey the call of blood, whose interests are with Germany, who rejoice when she has a victory, and who are disappointed when she has a defeat. I had the head official of a camp calling on me the other day—a well-known German camp in this country which I have visited several times—and, in my capacity of a member of the committee visiting the camp, I asked him, "What was the demeanour of the Germans recently when we had reverses—do they show their sympathy is still with Germany?" These men are interned civilians. "Yes, indeed," he replied, "and we have very good reason to know that. On the morning after a British reverse they come into the office and refuse to take off their hats and insist on smoking cigars in my office." I said, "Do you tolerate that?" He replied, "I report it." I do not blame them, but it shows that their interests are with their native country; and if Germany was victorious in this War it is wonderful, from the highways and byways, how the real Germans would show themselves. We have, therefore, got to approach this question with the belief that only 5 per cent. have become British naturalised subjects because they were opposed to the policy and military ambitions of Germany. What about the other 95 per cent.?

Let me take a typical case—that of Mr. Schroeder. He was living in this country for years before the War, and was a very rich man. He was naturalised after the War broke out, but not because he wanted to be a British subject. Mr. Schroeder has never, to his honour be it said, said, "I throw off the military despotism of Germany and want to breathe the free air of Britain for all time." Nothing of the kind! So far as I can trace, there is no act or deed which shows that Mr. Schroeder wanted to become a British subject. It is recorded in the official records that Mr. Schroeder was naturalised after the War not because he wanted to become a British subject, but to enable him to continue his business. That is the official explanation, and this country gave the naturalisation on the representation of certain financial authorities in the City that it was in the interests of British finance that he should become naturalised. Does the House think that we are scrapping the loyalty of Mr. Schroeder when for our own convenience, and for financial reasons, because he was accepting important bills from abroad, we made him a British subject? Nothing of the kind. I say that Schroeder is free to-day, although a British subject, to be loyal and true to the Kaiser, about whom he made such splendid speeches a few years ago. That is a type of naturalisation since the War. It was the same before. We all know them in our acquaintanceship—men who became British subjects for business reasons and for the privileges which they otherwise would not have had in carrying on their business, and the question of loyalty to this country and taking the oath never weighed with them a bit. They are honest enough, many of them, to say so.

Therefore, I say, we have to take note of the fact, and dismiss all idea that because a man pays a few pounds for a naturalisation certificate therefore he is a changed man. Nothing of the kind. These men are Germans to-day, and I should think very little of them if they did not love their country to-day, naturalised or unnaturalised. I should like to know, as I said before, if the British Forces were outside Berlin, on which side the sympathies of the Englishman or Scotsman interned in Germany would be. Of course, he would obey the call of the blood! The mere signature of a man does not alter his feelings with regard to nationality. Therefore, it is no use shutting our eyes to the fact that the sympathies of Germans, although naturalised British subjects, are with their native land. Mr. Schroeder became a British subject on the outbreak of the War. He still retains his sympathies for Germany. He has, for example, paid between £50,000 and £60,000 to German interests in this country since the out-break of war. I do not blame him, but there it is. It may be out of his pocket. It may be a recommendation to the Kaiser after the War to show what great service he rendered during the War to the interests of Germany. Not only that, but the British Government have allowed this same Mr. Schroeder, by special permission of the War Office, to give presents every year to the soldiers who guard the German prisoners in this country. Why are those privileges given to a wealthy German in this country who is naturalised? I have the statement of the War Office that he is granted this special privilege. It is this tenderness on the part of the Government which makes people outside so suspicious.

Why is it necessary in the fourth year of the War that there should be a public agitation outside to make the people who are supposed to lead do the most obvious thing that could present itself to them? Are we asking them to do anything unjust or unreasonable? What we ask has been done by all our Allies and practically all our Colonies. Do we suggest that they have been guilty of injustice? Why is it that people who ought to lead in the country are the very last to take action, and have almost to be kicked into action? I know there are some people who describe this as a "stunt." I remember those people. A stunt, to be successful, has got to be true, and it has got to be well justified and correct. I think you can claim all those qualifications for the subject of the agitation with which some of us are identified. There are people who talk about this to-day as an organised agitation. Why should we organise an agitation? What purpose does it serve? Most of the Members who plead this cause are staunch supporters of the Government in every respect. The only reason some of us have taken it up is that we are convinced it is a public danger, and that unless something is done, you are going to shatter the unity that has prevailed in this country—and very soon, too—because people cannot understand this great consideration for those of enemy origin in this country. I cannot forget, too, that the people who describe this to-day as a hysterical agitation, actuated by base and improper motives, are the very people who, when Lord Roberts was pointing out the danger of Germany, and when Robert Blatchford and many other distinguished people were warning the country that Germany was going to attack us, and that we ought to be prepared, described that movement at that time as a political stunt, which ought not to be taken any notice of. I pay no heed to that. I say to-day there is a real, living danger with regard to enemies in our midst in this country. The Home Secretary will not deny that he stated in so many words the other night that if there were an invasion of this country hundreds—shall I say thousands—of people who are at liberty to-day would be immediately put into prison. If that is the case, if they are dangerous in case of invasion, are they less dangerous at other times? I am one of those who have never dismissed the possibility of invasion, nor do I think the Government have, or they would not have 500,000 men in this country to defend it.

You cannot afford to take risks in time of War. You must do injustice to some in order to do justice to the nation as a whole, and I say this whole controversy ought to have been settled years ago if the Government had done the obvious thing in regard to matters we brought before them. I recognise that this Bill goes to some considerable extent in the direction we have agitated. It has been brought forward largely, I think, even the Home Secretary will admit, because of public uneasiness. But I recognise my right hon. Friend brought this Bill forward before the later stages of this controversy, and I think he deserves that credit, because it belongs to him. But I would point out to him, at the same time, that while he has taken enormous powers under this Bill, it depends upon how those powers are going to be exercised as to whether they are effective or not. This Bill sets up another Committee—the third dealing with aliens set up, or proposed, during the last week. To use the classical language of a distinguished politician, we have had "a litter of committees." I think it is necessary, in this case, we should have a Committee to weigh the evidence in regard to applications of naturalisation or cancellation, or any of these other things, but the weakness of this Bill, if I may say so, the weakness of the policy of the Government, is that there is no person really in charge of the Departments concerned with the administration of the law in regard to it. Why, you have at this moment the Home Secretary, the Admiralty, the War Office, the Board of Trade and the Scottish Office, and now you are going to deal with aliens in Ireland for the first time since the War began, though I believe there are more dangerous ones possibly there than in any other part of the kingdom. You have all these different Departments, but you have no Minister at the head. There should be a representative Committee, consisting of representatives of all the different Departments, to whom we could look for carrying out the legislation and policy with which we have equipped the Government.

I would venture to make one appeal to the Home Secretary. He has a difficult task to perform. He recognises the strong feeling in this matter. Will he not consider again the importance of having a Minister and an Interdepartmental Committee to deal with this matter? I believe it would go a long way to satisfy the public mind. My right hon. Friend has not the time to deal with all the matters affected by an important measure of this kind. It is the work really of one Minister. Let him have either his Under-Secretary, or someone else, who will be prepared to answer in this House and to the country for the proper carrying out of the law in regard to aliens. Many Members of this House—I am one of them—never get under 100 letters a morning daily on this matter. How useful it would be for us to pass them on to a Minister to deal with them. It would save an enormous amount of time and a great deal of expense, but, apart from that, the public would know the Government were dealing with them. I was talking the other day to an important official, one of the highest men in the service. He said, "I know we have dangerous people in certain quarters where they ought not to be a danger to the State. I am uneasy about it, and I am anxious about it, but I have no power to remove them." I said, "Why?" He replied, "Oh, it has to go through at least six or eight different Departments before it conies back to me, which takes five or six weeks, and by the time it is considered people get apathetic about it, and possibly nothing is done." That condition of things ought not to exist in time of war. We ought to have one man who could in one hour remove a person who is likely to do something injurious to the interests of our country. Therefore I beg of my right hon. Friend to consider the desirability of having an Interdepartmental Committee, representative of all the interests involved, in regard to the carrying out of the law affecting aliens. I ask him to get a real live man in charge of that Department. Let him be the person to be kicked in the eyes of the country if he does not carry out the stated policy. I believe in that way we will go a very considerable distance to settling this very great controversy.

I desire to speak a few words on this Bill before it leaves this House, not because I am out of sympathy with a good many of the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Dublin University, for I have great sympathy with him when he talks about the amazing state of affairs in this country that men who were but recently naturalised can occupy high office and semi-judicial office in this country. But people like the last speaker talk as though this was practically the most important thing, and the one thing that was thrilling and filling the minds of the people of this country.

Hear, hear!

I do not believe a word of it. We know perfectly well that at a time like this when there is no real political fighting going on, when the political truce is on, when the three great parties have almost joined hands in supporting the Cabinet and the Government it is very difficult indeed to get up much interest in politics. I remember once a very prominent member of the Government saying that in politics the platform would always beat the Press. For four years the platform has been silent. The Press has had its way. It is the easiest thing in the world for the Press at any election, and at any moment, to support some unworthy "stunt," especially if we are not doing very well at the front for the moment. A few victories, and the nonsense we have heard in the last few months would not have an audience. We are told by the right hon. Gentleman that the Home Secretary has been forced into this attitude by him and his friends. Why, it is months ago, when the Home Secretary was making a statement about this Bill—I remember him being here during the Debate on this very question—that personally, although I am absolutely opposed to this alien agitation, I expressed myself much the same as now in regard to this Bill which is being brought forward. I am not against the Bill. I am against certain phases of it, and against certain attempts to extend it by what I think most unworthy ways. I rejoice that the Government has stood firm in this matter, and has kept a judicial mind and a judicial balance, and has refused to be harried and hurried into taking a course absolutely unworthy of this country. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy gets up and says that 95 per cent. of the people who have been naturalised in this country absolutely and practically retain their sympathies with their country. I do not believe a word of it.

Ninety-five per cent. of the Germans.

I do not believe a word of it. I believe domicile in many cases is a stronger force than the call of the blood. I do not say that is so with our own nation. I think our own nation gets naturalised with great difficulty, and that people who are British remain British all over the world. I believe that to be true. I have not been all over the world, but I have spoken to a great many people who have been, and I have been about a bit, and I have always found that they say that on the whole the German is a very easy person to naturalise. [An HON. MEMBER: "Oh!"] I know there are contrary opinions to that, but I say that the German is very much keener at trade than he is in the matter of nationality. Whether that be so or not, I say the figure of 95 per cent. is grossly exaggerated. It is absolutely unworthy of this country that we should get into such a state of hysteria and make hysterical statements of that sort. It is not that large numbers of this country are not entirely in support of the Government in the matter of this Bill. What we do say is, and what the country is so much inflamed about, is the statements made without regard to the truth, and in point of view which are absolutely untrue.

The other day a Committee was appointed to advise the Government on this question. They brought in certain proposals about the Delbrück law. They said that all certificates of naturalisation granted since the 1st January, 1914, ought to be automatically taken away except if national grounds could be discovered for keeping them, and the reason given was that from date onwards Germans could not be naturalised in other countries and give up their own nationality. I am not talking about the hon. Baronet now, but about the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for York, who said in this House—I am within the hearing of those who heard what he said—and that was the basis of his argument to this House for taking away these certificates. He was prepared to move an Amendment upon the ground that the Home Secretary said a few minutes afterwards was absolutely false. He had got the whole thing absolutely upside down. When you have-an agitation like that with a prominent Chancery lawyer appointed to consider the case, and the Court reports, and he comes down to the House, obviously having not read the thing at all, is it very surprising that we should seem a little bit uneasy about these statements being accepted by the public? As a matter of fact, I believe the position as regards Germans has always been that a German could be naturalised in a foreign country, and that did not take away his naturalisation in Germany unless he were absent from Germany a certain number of years, or took certain steps in Germany to denaturalise himself. I am quite certain you could do that, because I have actually prepared the documents for it, and I know it is perfectly possible to get rid of your nationality on undergoing certain formalities, such as being away from the country a certain length of time. That is very true. But the Delbrück law, for the first time, says that anyone who was naturalised without the consent of the German Government ipso facto ceased to be a German. Yet when this Report came out, to the surprise of the country—it may be that individual members of the Committee had not read the Report!—it was said, "Oh, yes, let us take away the certificates, because from that date, as a matter of fact, the German could not possibly throw off his nationality." That is put forward by a prominent legal Member of this House.

It is for that reason that we, who are absolutely with the Government, are profoundly disquieted when we find the public misled in this way. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs the other day complained that the Home Secretary had, in certain instances, overridden the recommendations of the Committee that decided upon the case of these aliens. The present Home Secretary said he had never done so. The right hon. Gentleman himself, although he complained of the Home Secretary overriding the Committee's decisions, apparently has no confidence in their decisions, because he is one of the persons who is constantly stating that their decisions ought to be revised. Apparently he is convinced, whether or not Home Secretaries ought to interfere, that the decisions of the Committee ought to be revised, perhaps by another Committee!

What is the real measure of this agitation? A number of people are not interned at the present time, every one of whose cases have been decided by a Committee presided over by two of the most trusted and prominent judges on the bench. Judicial consideration has been given to the cases, and these people are at large. Is that a national danger? I do not believe when you have appointed another Committee and have gone over these cases—the Home Secretary has gone over some of them himself and some of these persons have been interned—I do not think when you have gone over these cases with anything like a judicial committee, such as I am quite sure we shall have, you will find many changes will be made.

Then there is the question about which I have always taken a much keener interest, and I think in this matter our national honour is involved. I refer to the question of naturalisation. It is all very well for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kirkcaldy to talk about the fun, to make a mock of it, and say it is a somewhat solemn document. To many of us it is a solemn document. I do not desire to read it now, but the ceremony of naturalisation goes through in this country with all sorts of solemnities. I think it would be an atrocious thing if we were to take away a certificate of naturalisation in this country for any but a good cause, and if there is a good cause there is not a Member in this House who would not be in favour of it. If there is a good cause, if those concerned have broken the oath upon which they were naturalised, one had a perfect right to say to them, "You have broken your oath of allegiance and we are going to take away your rights." I have spoken strongly twice before in the House on this subject of the burden of proof, and I am glad the Government have stood firm, and I am sure they will continue to stand firm, on this question. I am all for revising certificates of naturalisation granted during the War, although I am against the suggestions made about Mr. Schroeder. When the Government asks a man to be naturalised, until we know to the contrary, we assume that although his sympathies may remain German he is sufficiently honourable not to show them during the War. Other people have been naturalised for natural reasons and others for personal reasons. I say that to take away the certificate of naturalisation from honourable people who have been here for a few years without cause would be a violation of national honour. For that reason I rejoice that the Home Secretary has stood firm upon that matter. I believe that from start to finish the right hon. Gentleman has endeavoured to hold the scales fairly in this matter. We all see the troubles of the aliens in our midst, and one is also sorry to feel that many of our own subjects are going through the same trouble in other countries.

We have to remember that for years and years this country has opened its doors wide to all comers. It is all very well to say it is a mistaken policy, but there are few of us looking back a few hundred years who have not a good deal of foreign blood in our veins, and in the heat of war-time we ought to consider whether it is not more worthy not to get excited about little dangers, but remember the traditions of this country are the things that have made it, and also remember the way we have always invited persecuted people to come here, and this has made this country more beloved than any country in the world.

Shortly before the Revolution in Russia I was there, and I was much surprised at the regard which ordinary educated Russians had for this country, and that is so because we have been so generous in the way we have invited the whole world to come here. We may have been wrong, but even with the risks we have run this country has derived great strength from the foreign blood that has come into it. I do not care two pins whether what I am saying is popular or not, or whether the alien stunt is popular. We shall have to face our constituents on these stunts, and I know that when it comes to fighting out these matters in any great British constituency, although these things may be popular for the moment, we shall find the British public take long views and are pretty sensible on these matters. Therefore, we need not be in the least nervous about the British public losing their heads on a matter like this. A good deal of very unworthy talk may inflame the public mind, but I believe there is at the root of this question a desire to show fair play, and whatever our opponents do—and God knows they have done horrible things enough!—the people desire that nothing should be done here that will defame the fair name of this country or tear up any document to which this country has set its seal.

My hon. Friend who has just spoken has discovered that in some way the British public has lost its head. I have discovered no such signs. On the contrary, I think they have maintained a most exemplary patience for four years, which is hardly requited by this Bill. My hon. Friend argued about the Delbrück law, but the question of interest is, What is the German law? It is such in Germany that men like Sir Edgar Speyer may still remain German citizens. I will read what a prominent German lawyer, Professor Seligson, said about the law in Germany just a few months ago, in the "Berliner Tageblatt" concerning Germans living in foreign countries:

"According to a recent judicial decision in Germany, they have not lost their German nationality even after living ten years out of Germany and even though they have not registered themselves at the local German Consulate, on condition that they have visited Germany in the course of this ten years' period. Such visit having interrupted the period of absence, this period begins to run anew as though there had been no previous absence from Germany; moreover they remain German citizens even if they have acquired a foreign nationality. It is only the acquisition of American nationality in the United States, which in conformity with the terms of the Bancroft Treaty, implies the loss of German nationality."

The result of that is that Germans like Sir Edgar Speyer, who have become English citizens according to our law, remain German citizens according to German law. My two right hon. Friends who have spoken have so fully covered the ground that I shall be very brief. I said the other day that I thought this House was suspect in the matter of alien legislation with the country. One reason for that is undoubtedly the readiness with which we have admitted men of German birth into the government of this country, and into Government employment. There is another reason. The only Bill that we have passed has weakened this question of naturalisation. Before the War it took seven years' residence in the United Kingdom for a German to become a British subject. This law came into existence on 1st January, 1915, during the War, and it actually reduced the period to five years for anybody who had been resident in the British Dominions. I am not sure that this Bill does not further weaken this question by bringing in the territories that have been taken from the enemy by allowing them to acquire British citizenship when they have been residents under the British flag for a period of five years. I think that is a very undesirable state of things.

I believe the French law is much more stringent, and we should do well to copy the French in regard to this question. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) made some very strong remarks about those men of enemy, descent who were in the Government, or are employed by the Government. There are two classes: the people high up and the people low down. I think it very wrong and invidious that when we, as Members of Parliament, have criticised the presence of men of German descent in the Foreign Office, the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs has at once gone to the point of anger, and has more or less castigated us for having ventured to doubt the loyalty to those gentlemen. It is not a question of doubting their loyalty—it is a question of undermining of public confidence through the presence of men who, following the call of the blood, might very well be inclined to support Germany against this country in war. I do not doubt the loyalty of these gentlemen for one moment, but I do think that, as gentlemen, their right course ought to be to relieve His Majesty's Government of all embarrassment by retiring from their positions. It is the example which was set to them by one of the most loyal gentlemen in this country, the Marquess of Milford Haven, better known as Prince Louis of Battenburg. No finer example was set by anyone in this country at the beginning of the War than when he relieved the Government from embarrassment by retiring from his high office.

Now for an example of the people low down. I had a question on the Order Paper to-day, which I was asked to postpone, about a man whose real name was Krahn, who, after going through many vicissitudes in this country and having actually been imprisoned, was taken, on the 1st April this year, into an important record office in a subordinate position where he would be able to obtain confidential information. No one can doubt that this man, of German descent, ought never to have been able to get into Government employment, still less into a record office in the War Office. For these and for other reasons, knowing that hard cases make bad law, and knowing that the one and only consideration ought to be the paramount one of the safety of the country, I still hope that when this Bill goes to another place the Government will take every opportunity of endeavouring to strengthen it.

The last speaker but one recommended us to trust naturalised Germans until we find them disloyal—that is, that we should give the benefit of the doubt in these cases to the enemy and not to our own country. The important question is, What is going to be the method of treatment and of administration of this Bill if it becomes law? I agree with the right hon. Member for Trinity College in regretting that this Bill is not very much stronger than it is. He referred to the danger of enemy aliens in our public offices. I do not know how far he means to go, when he speaks of our public offices, whether he means the Foreign Office and the Civil Service generally or whether he is referring directly to what I wish to draw attention to, the munitions works and controlled establishments. I should like to know what is going to be the administration of this Act in regard to the munitions works, the controlled establishments, and, although I do not wish to dwell very much on the point, to the Diplomatic service. This Act will be a failure unless it is administered in a much harder and firmer manner than the Home Office has been administered during the last year or two. I want to deal with this question of treating the enemy alien who has been naturalised as if he was honourable in every respect and loyal to this country until he is found out to the contrary. We have had a striking number of cases of naturalised enemy aliens who have not acted in that way, but who have acted very seriously to the detriment of the country in the carrying on of the War. In the course of the last few months there have been a number of cases of naturalised aliens in our munition factories, or our controlled establishments, or connected with companies who are making munitions of war, who have been convicted of malpractices and fined or sent to prison. I think we ought to give the benefit of the doubt to our own country, and not to these men. We ought not to leave them in a position for one or two years of being able to do us serious danger. Let me give an example. If the Government like, I will give them full particulars, though I am not going to give them to the House. An enemy alien naturalised many years ago in this country has been at the head of a firm which for several years during the War has been making large quantities of a specialised article in the metal trade that is essential for the carrying on of the War. His firm for the last two years have been receiving large quantities of raw material to make up into this particular article. Other firms, purely British, have also been receiving this material, but this particular firm of which this enemy alien is the head, have been turning out the largest number of rejections of any of the firms making this article.

I do not see how this comes at all within the ambit of this Bill. This is not a Bill to deal with enemy aliens, but with naturalised subjects, and if the hon. Member desires to give the illustration he must put it in another way.

I am sorry. It is my fault. The Gentleman is a naturalised alien. I merely used the term for shortness. His firm have been receiving a large share, a very large proportion, of the raw material for manufacturing this article, and their percentage of rejections over a long period has been the highest. Yet the firm have continued to receive a larger proportion of the raw material than any of their competitors. The question naturally arises how he has succeeded in getting this privilege. It may prove that it has been by underhand or entirely wrong methods, but that I cannot say. Meanwhile, purely British firms have been placed at a disadvantage. By peculiar methods he succeeds in getting more than his share of the raw material, and he succeeds in producing far more than ten times the proper proportion of rejections, thus over a period of several years delaying the production of one of our principal arms for fighting. That firm and that gentleman are at present under the consideration, I believe, of the Law Officers of the Crown. My point is one to which the Home Secretary or the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions have not paid sufficient attention in the past. It is that we have in our munition works and in our controlled establishments a number of naturalised aliens who, if their cases were carefully looked into, would be found to be under the suspicion—justifiable suspicion—that their actions have been unfriendly to this country. The question then arises. Why should these men be left in these positions? There are plenty of Englishmen to take their places. There is no reason why, in the engineering trade, which is the particular example I have given, at the beginning of the War such men should not have been pushed out and British-born men of engineering ability put in their places. Many such cases have been brought to light. There are a great many cases which have never been brought to light. There are many cases for which no consideration could be obtained either by questions put in this House or by information given to the Ministry of Munitions or to any of the heads of the Departments. At this period of the War there is only one safe course for us to take. It is diametrically opposed to the one suggested by the hon. Member opposite. It is to presume that every naturalised alien in this country will work for the country to which he belongs, and for us to say that, unless we have definite evidence in his favour—it should not be put the other way: that unless we have definite evidence against him—he is in all things, and has been at all times, loyal to this country, he ought to be removed from that post. If he claims that he is a loyal citizen, the very least that he can do is to show his loyalty to the country he has adopted, and be willing to stand on one side during the War, as several distinguished men have done, and to allow his place to be taken by a man who is not under suspicion. The least the Home Office and the Ministry of Munitions can do is to take away the risk of these men doing harm to us in our munition works and controlled establishments, so as to remove that justifiable want of confidence which is felt right through the industrial parts of this country, and the feeling that the lives of our men at the front are being endangered by the continued presence of these people in important positions under the Ministry of Munitions, where they can have a very serious and unfortunate effect on the lives of our soldiers who are at the front. The same is true when you go to the Diplomatic Service. There are men in the Diplomatic Service who ought not to remain there.

Really, all these things are rather matters of administration. They are only very remotely connected with the Third Reading of this Bill. They are matters which would come more properly on the Vote for the Ministry of Munitions or the Foreign Office, and so on.

I accept your ruling, Sir. I agree that these are purely matters of administration, and the only reason why I have brought them forward is that I am thoroughly dissatisfied with the present administration of these matters. I hope that when this Bill is passed we shall have a very different system of administration than we have had up to now.

I have listened to a good many speeches in the hope of hearing some observations which related either to the Bill or to the administration of my Department. Perhaps it is time to deal with the few points which have been raised. The hon. Member (Sir R. Barran), following what is a very common example, has imputed to my office faults, if they be faults, which turn entirely upon the duties of 'other Departments—in one case, that of the Gentleman who obtained too much raw material—the Board of Trade, and in the other the Ministry of Munitions. Throughout his speech—and the same applies to other speeches—there was not a word which applied in any way to the work of the Home Office—although he was good enough to name it—or to the provisions of this Bill.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite wanted to know something about the administration of the naturalisation law in Ireland. The whole law of naturalisation is administered by the Home Office in this country. The hon. and gallant Gentleman was, I think, confusing naturalisation with the administration of the law relating to enemy aliens. Naturalisation is, of course, a national matter—very often an Imperial matter. As regards the internment of aliens, that is not, of course, material to the Bill, but there is not really any such confusion as he supposes. Technically the duty is mine. Actually it is delegated to the Irish Office, and is carried out through the Irish police. I am satisfied that if any inquiries he has to make are addressed to the Irish Office in Dublin he will find that matters there are administered quite as strictly and as carefully as they are in this country. I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but from what I have heard I think he must have been misinformed in thinking there is law.

The right hon. Gentleman (Sir H. Dalziel) addressed his observations to the position of persons who were naturalised in this country. In the recommendations of the group of Members of which the hon. and gallant Gentleman was Chairman there is no recommendation on this subject which has not been embodied in the Bill, and therefore his criticisms, as far as they are condemnatory, are not condemnatory of me or of the Bill itself.

I think the right hon. Gentleman went a little further than the Bill. He said if information was received from a responsible person about a naturalised alien his case would be reviewed.

That is so. If any information is received imputing disloyalty, disaffection, or any other of the offences which are now specified in the Bill, he will at once have his case reviewed, and the Bill puts in Parliamentary language what the Committees very naturally put in language less Parliamentary. But however that may be, neither the right hon. Gentleman nor any of his colleagues has proposed any Amendment which would carry the Bill further than it has gone in connection with naturalised persons. The proposal to denaturalise enemy aliens who have been naturalised during the War, or at all events to review their cases, is fully dealt with under this Bill. The effect of the Bill now is that in cases where an enemy alien has been naturalised during the War there will be a careful review by the Committee and there will be an open reference to the Committee as to whether the certificate should be continued or not, and if they say it ought not to be continued then effect will be given to that.

I think the only other concrete point raised was that there should be one Minister dealing with aliens. It was said that there were five or six Departments dealing with them. I am interested to hear that. I did not know it. I am interested to hear that I did not know it. I am afraid I was under the impression that all this work falls upon my Department and the Board of Trade, or at any rate I was not aware of any other Department except the Military Intelligence Department which has anything to do with this subject. There is complete coordination between that Department and my own.

And the Naval Intelligence Department.

And the Naval Intelligence Department. I do not think my right hon. Friend or anybody else would propose to transfer the work of the Military Intelligence Department or of the Naval Intelligence Department from the military or naval authorities to a new Minister. It would be a very foolish thing to do and, therefore, I am sure my right hon. Friend would not propose it. The work of the Military Intelligence Department is admirably done. I refer to them day by day for help and advice. The police of the country work closely with the Military Intelligence Department and help each other. I do not think there is in the world any system of intelligence better than or so good as our own. That is not only my view but the view of foreign countries which from time to time come to us for information and advice. With the exception of those two Departments there is no other besides my own that deals with aliens as such, although the Board of Trade deal with businesses. I do not think any good would be done by placing under a new Minister the duties of the Home Office the Board of Trade and the two Intelligence Departments in connection with aliens, However, this is not a matter for me, but for the Government and the Cabinet. I need hardly say that if I could be relieved of the duty of dealing with aliens I should be relieved of a very troublesome part of the work which now devolves upon me.

There has been a certain amount of general discussion, but throughout the discussion there has not been a word of criticism directed against my office or against the administration of the law relating to aliens so far as my office is concerned. I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University (Sir E. Carson) for saying that he had no criticism to make against myself and my office. When I am criticised in this House I am always glad of it because one can deal with critics in this House. We see one another face to face, and if a charge is made I can either admit it or refute it. Therefore, it is a satisfaction to have charges if there be any brought on the floor of this House. What it is impossible to deal with is criticism outside, especially irresponsible and anonymous criticism. I knew, of course, when I took the Home Office that I was taking an office which is almost always unpopular, because it has many unpopular duties to perform, duties in regard to which it would be wrong to seek popularity. I did not take the office for my own pleasure or profit. I took it because I knew it was a difficult office, and I thought that I could carry out the duties. I do not think that any Member of this House can realise to what length criticism of the kind to which I refer can go or realise what it means unless he has experience of it. I had better not describe it. But I must say this: Criticism of that irresponsible kind is impossible to deal with. One's only remedy is to go on doing what seems right, leaving people to find out whether the charges made are true or false, and trusting to the final judgment of one's colleagues in this House and of one's countrymen as a whole.

I make no high claim for myself, but I claim to have been and to be as keen and determined as anyone in the country that this War shall be carried on against our enemy with all lawful weapons which we can use, and I claim in the administration of the Home Office to have done my duty in connection with aliens as in connection with other matters. I have been, I think, strict, very strict, often very hard, in the administration of the laws relating to aliens. The system which I have administered has been approved time after time by this House. Some of our most severe critics have taken part in it and have asked for the naturalisation of enemy aliens, have asked for exemption of enemy aliens from internment, and have asked for the release from internment of enemy aliens already interned. I do not criticise their action, but I think that those facts make it more incumbent upon them to be at all events fair and moderate in criticising the Minister who has to administer the law relating to aliens. I should add that I was myself the author of the Trading With the Enemy Act, the only Act under which enemy businesses can be taken from aliens and vested in the Public Trustee. Then there are the changes which I had the honour of announcing last week, and these have been almost entirely carried out. In two cases Orders in Council were necessary for carrying them out, and those Orders have been made. The two Committees which I mentioned are on the point of being constituted. As to patents and the enemy banks, Orders have been made, and the only thing remaining to be done is to bring in a Bill on Monday dealing with future enemy banks. Therefore, I think we cannot be accused of delay in carrying out, practically within a week, the whole of the very important changes which we announced. This Bill is not the fruit of any agitation of any kind. It was announced by me months ago, and it would have been introduced last year but for the necessity of consulting the Dominions, which, of course, always takes time. The moment I got answers from the Dominions this Bill was framed and introduced. Nobody will be more glad than I to see it passed into law, and nobody will be more anxious to see it firmly and efficiently administered.

As to the concluding portion of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, I heard it with a good deal of surprise. He made a complaint, dignified complaint no doubt, upon the amount and nature of the criticism to which he has been subjected, and he referred to anonymous criticism, I presume criticism in the Press. I do not profess to be a wide reader of newspapers, but, as far as I have seen, my right hon. Friend has been singularly free from any criticism of that sort, and he has enjoyed rather an unusual share of public confidence—certainly he has in this House. I must say that no Minister has had a larger share of the confidence of the House. But in other respects the speech of my right hon. Friend was decidedly unsatisfactory, because there was one phase of the criticism brought forward in this Debate to which he really made no reference at all. It was the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Kirkealdy and the right hon. Member for Dublin University, and it was in regard to this Bill being regarded only as a small instalment of legislation on this subject. I hoped very much that my right hon. Friend, when he came to reply, would have given some information upon that subject, some assurance with regard to it. I was one of a number of Members of this House who, a long time ago now, voluntarily undertook investigations of this and kindred subjects connected with aliens during the War. Although we had no responsibility and no official position, we conducted that work with a very great amount of industry, and I think with thoroughness. We called a great many witnesses, and we examined the existing state of the law. We made a Report, which I know was brought to the knowledge of my right hon. Friend, dated as long ago as December, 1914, and speaking in this House on a subsequent occasion he made reference to that Report. As long ago as 14th February, 1917, my right hon. Friend said

"As to the question of denaturalisation, the point is being considered by the same Committee——"

That is, the Committee to which he has just referred—

"the Committee have arrived at certain con-elusions, but have not yet reported."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th February, 1917, col. 713, Vol. 90.]

I really do think that the House and the country have good grounds for complaint against the Government—I do not say, of course, against my right hon. Friend—when he was able to tell the country seventeen months ago—in February, 1917—that the Committee to which he had referred this very point dealt with in this Bill, although it had not reported, had come to definite conclusions. That certainly led the country to suppose that within a very few weeks, or at the outside a few months, this matter would have been dealt with by legislation. The only sort of reply made to that by my right hon. Friend is that it was necessary to communicate with the Dominions. Does he really expect the country to believe that it takes seventeen months in time of war to consult the four or five Governments of the Dominions in order to arrive at a concerted policy on one single point with regard to the denaturalisation as a matter of war urgency of the aliens in this country? All I can say is I am utterly unable to accept that as a good and sufficient reason for seventeen months' delay in dealing with this matter; but the facts are patent, and the words he used in February are the only answer I have heard to what has been said this afternoon.

It is not quite right to say seventeen months. We did not get the answer from the Dominions until too late to introduce a Bill last Session. We prepared it and introduced it at the earliest moment this Session. It was not seventeen months after—about twelve months, and at the earliest possible time.

There has been that delay, and I will leave my right hon. Friend's explanation at that. The point I want to insist upon is that that is only one point. I have not the reference now to replies which, I think, have been given by the Leader of the House, but my impression is that at a very early period the Government were asked whether they were going to deal with the subject of naturalised aliens, the status of aliens, and the definition of nationality. Certainly, I was led to expect—I do not know that I was different from others—and the country and this House were led to expect that we should have an overhauling of our naturalisation laws before this, and that if the particular points dealt with in this Bill were singled out for separate treatment, it would only be because it was a war emergency measure about which there was more hurry, and that the rest of the subject could be allowed to wait. We have had no intimation throughout the proceedings on this Bill that this is not the last word. The Home Secretary has given no intimation that all those larger subjects are to be dealt with. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about excitement out of doors, newspaper stunts, organised campaigns, agitation, and so forth, does he imagine that this Bill is going to stop it? I do not myself subscribe to any of those descriptions of what is going on. My impression is that there is a very large body of perfectly reasonable and instructed public opinion which is extremely dissatisfied with the conditions of our naturalisation laws, and most anxious to see them changed, and that opinion is finding perfectly legitimate expression in the newspapers, and it will continue to do so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dublin University called attention to what is, after all, the fundamental point with regard to the question of nationality, namely, that we in this country rest our definition and idea of nationality upon what lawyers no doubt would call jus soli instead of jus sanguinis—a fundamental difference, and, as, I think, the Committee to which I have referred pointed out eighteen months ago, we and the United States of America, who have followed us and have taken their definition of nationality from our Common Law, stand alone in the civilised world in that regard. That is a matter which requires consideration, and, in the judgment of a very great number of people, change and alteration. We have not had any sort of statement from the Government that they propose to do that.

It really was not relevant to this Bill, but my hon. Friend may take it from me that we have thoroughly investigated that point. Indeed, I have a report on it in my hands, and that no doubt will be one of the points which will be dealt with by the Expert Committee to which I have referred. And there are, of course, many other points connected with the law of nationality.

I am grateful for that statement. What I want to know is whether we have a definite statement or assurance from the Government that they are proposing to deal with the whole question of our naturalisation laws and that we may look forward, at a very early date—subject to what may happen with regard to an election or otherwise—but that as far as the Government are responsible they will say that in the next Session, or in the next Parliament if they are still responsible, they will bring in a general naturalisation law based upon the recommendations of the Committee to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred? I have not heard any definite statement that that is the Government's intention, and many of us took steps to ascertain whether we could introduce Amendments into this Bill, so strong is the feeling that these larger points ought to be dealt with. There is a matter which was referred to by my right hon. Friend opposite, the question of making naturalised persons ineligible for certain positions in this country. That is a matter which there is a great deal of feeling about—almost as much feeling as there is about the point dealt with in this Bill—and if it is the Government's intention to bring in legislation at as reasonable a date as they can, dealing with that and other points, making more strict the conditions upon which certificates of naturalisation are granted, making naturalised persons ineligible for a number of positions, including membership of this House, and matters of that sort, I think it is a great pity that they did not take the opportunity of the introduction of this Bill to make that announcement, I was not able to be here on the Second Reading of the Bill, but I read the reports of it, and I cannot remember that either then or at any time up to the present moment any such announcement as that has been made by my right hon. Friend, and it is because there has been no announcement of that sort made that so much dissatisfaction has been expressed in the criticisms that have been made upon this Bill itself. The character of this discussion to-day has been that, whilst, almost without a dissentient voice, the Bill has been welcomed, and, on the whole, the provisions of the Bill have been approved almost from all parts of the House, there is evident dissatisfaction that the Bill itself is so very limited in its scope. I do not know whether it is now too late for the right hon. Gentleman to give us further information on this subject, but all I can say is that, from the point of view of criticism of the Government and of himself, about which he is evidently very sensitive, and also of the much more important point of view of the satisfaction of reasonable opinion out-of-doors, I think, if it is not too late, he might even now give us some sort of assurance in the direction I have indicated.

I rise to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary that he will soon be in possession of further powers to deal with the alien enemy danger in our midst. I think that even he would not deny that this provision is long overdue, but we can only say, "Better late than never." But that we should have been waging the most terrible War the world ever knew for four years before we had arrived at this stage is really the reason of the disquietude in the country on this very vital question. The Bill is certainly too limited in its scope. I personally have the greatest confidence in the present Home Secretary, and believe that he will administer it with firmness, and make it have as good results as so weak a measure can possibly achieve. I was sorry he seemed reluctant to accept suggestions of a simple character which would have been welcomed by the country, such, for instance, as the suggestion that a naturalised British subject, in signing registers at hotels and other places, should be compelled to state "naturalised British subject" to let us know where we are, and, further, that the multitude of enemy aliens who have changed their names into English names should be compelled, when signing their English name, to add below the name from which they changed into the English name. Those two little suggestions, which my right hon. Friend did not deign for a moment to consider, would have given satisfaction to the country. Since I made the suggestions I have had a crowd of communications from all over the country thanking me, and hoping these suggestions would be given effect to. I do not wish for a moment to stand in the way of the Third Beading of the Bill, because, although it is not entirely satisfactory, we do recognise that the Home Secretary has, in some respects, met our wishes by Amendments which certainly make it a more effective measure to accomplish what we desire than it was as at first framed. He has conducted it with that tact and ability which distinguish him, and I can only hope, as the last speaker stated, that it is only the forerunner of other measures, because, no matter what he or anyone else may say, the majority of people in the country are determined that alien enemies should not be in this country in the future on the same terms as before, or trade with it or exploit it as they did before. Therefore, we have begun to protect British interests, and we are glad that the Government have begun to safeguard us from the alien danger.

I want to be quite frank with my right hon. and learned Friend in reference to his concluding remarks about criticism. I may say for myself and the hon. Members on whose behalf I speak, that we want to get on with the Bill, and to get the best possible Bill that we can. I do not want the right hon. Gentleman to think that I and others are thoroughly satisfied as far as his administration is concerned. What we do feel is that the Prime Minister's speech last week did show a new spirit on the part of His Majesty's Government, and we trust that that spirit is going to be reflected in the various Departments of State, and that the laxity about which I and others have complained will be very much modified. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will not think that we are now entirely satisfied. It is impossible for me to raise one or two other points now, but I am going to ask the Home Secretary to allow me to communicate with him on the three points which I do still consider of importance in connection with this Bill and its administration.