QUARTERLY REVIEW.

No. 438.-JANUARY, 1914.

Art. 1.-THE IMPERIAL NATURALISATION BILL. 1. Report of the Inter-departmental Committee on the Acts relating to Naturalisation. 1901. [Cd. 723.] 2. Papers relating to, Proceedings of, Papers laid before, and Correspondence relating to, the Colonial and Imperial Conferences, 1902–1911. [Cd. 1299, 3523, 3524, 5273, 5745.] 3. British Citizenship. Correspondence from United Empire.' Edited by E. B. Sargant. London: Longmans, 1912. 4. Responsible Government in the Dominions. By A. B. Keith. Three vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1912. 5. Debates of the Canadian House of Commons. December 4, 1911; February 2, 1912; January 29, 1913. Ottawa: Parmelee, 1912-13.

6. Memorandum to the Hon. W. J. Roche, M.P., Secretary of State of Canada. By Thomas Mulvey, Under-Sec. of State. Ottawa, April 15, 1912.

SOME months ago it was announced from Canada that the corrected draft of the Imperial Naturalisation Bill had been approved by the Canadian Government. With the settlement of the point which had been raised at Ottawa the last technical obstacle appears to have been removed from the path of a long-delayed reform, the accomplishment of which would mark a further step towards Imperial unity. What is still needed is only nat in Britain and each self-governing Dominion public opinion should be moved to insist that the requisite legislation, being non-contentious, shall not be postponed to measures of party interest, but shall be introduced and passed in each legislature without delay. As regards Britain, promises to that effect have been publicly made by a cabinet minister, Mr Herbert Samuel, both at home Vol. 220.-No. 438.

B

and in Canada. In the following pages an attempt is made to trace the history of the impending reform and to explain its Imperial importance.

Naturalisation is the process whereby 'aliens' who settle in any part of the Empire may acquire the privileges and responsibilities of natural-born British subjects, i.e. persons who owe allegiance to the King by virtue of their birth. The main anomaly to be rectified is that, under present conditions, an alien naturalised in any Dominion or Colony ceases to be a British subject whenever he goes outside its territorial limits. He then becomes a foreigner again, reverting to his original nationality, unless he lost it under the laws of his fatherland by swearing allegiance elsewhere. If he is still accorded the privileges of a British subject-e.g. by being granted a passport from the Foreign Office for purposes of travel abroad-that is only by courtesy. Strange to say, the same limitation perhaps applies even to the status conferred by naturalisation in the United Kingdom itself.* In recent years the practical importance of the anomaly has been aggravated owing to the greatly increased volume of foreign immigration into the Dominions, especially Canada. At the Imperial Conference of 1911 Sir Wilfrid Laurier made an eloquent plea for the principle, 'A British subject anywhere a British subject everywhere.' He instanced the case of the American settlers, who readily take out naturalisation papers in Canada, only to find that when they come to Europe they are no longer British subjects, but foreigners again.† The same applies to

The following considerations suggest that naturalisation in the United Kingdom has no effect outside its borders: (1) In a circular dispatch of September 10, 1874, the Colonial Secretary informed the Colonial Governments that, as he was advised, a certificate of naturalisation granted under the authority of the Acts of 1844 or 1870 confers upon an alien no rights or privileges in a British Colony.' (2) The Committee of 1899 state that the authorities are divided in opinion as to whether section 7 of the Act of 1870 confers upon an alien naturalised in the United Kingdom the status of a British subject outside the United Kingdom either in a foreign country or in a British Colony.' (Cd. 723, pp. 9-10.) (3) The argument of the Canadian Minister of Justice, summarised below, p. 21.

6

† Mr Keith remarks (p. 1323), A man who is naturalised in a British Colony may be a minister of the Crown there, but becomes when he goes outside the territory a foreigner.'

settlers of any foreign nationality in any of the Dominions. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's statement of the position was afterwards disputed, but in the opinions collected for Mr Sargant by the editor of United Empire' the weight of authority seems to uphold it. The Naturalisation Act of 1870 is still the principal law.* It recognised the right of the colonies to regulate naturalisation within the limits of their own territories, following in that regard an earlier Act passed in 1847. But it made no provision for securing that an alien duly naturalised in a colony should pass as a British subject throughout the Empire at least.

To understand precisely the nature of the existing difficulty and the scope of the impending reform, one must start with a clear idea as to what actually are the privileges and responsibilities which aliens acquire by naturalisation. Popular misconception, confusing subjecthood with citizenship, has been one of the main obstacles in the path of reform.

The rights or privileges of a British subject appear to be principally the following :

(1) first and foremost, the right to invoke anywhere the protection of the Crown against personal oppression, especially in a foreign country;

(2) the right to sue or be tried by British law in those foreign countries where Consular Courts have been established under the Foreign Jurisdiction Act, 1890;

(3) the right to be married in foreign countries under the provisions of the Foreign Marriages Act, 1892;

(4) the right to have an owner's interest in a British ship. Formerly there were restrictions on the liberty of aliens to acquire and hold property generally, but in the main these have long since been removed except as regards the ownership of ships.

The responsibilities or liabilities of a British subject consist principally in whatever may be implied in the oath taken by an alien, on naturalisation, that he or she 'will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Sovereign.' In addition, there is the liability to be sued in the Consular courts in foreign countries; to be brought to trial in

* The 1870 law was based on the report of a Royal Commission which sat in 1869. There were subsequent Acts in 1872 and 1895.

British courts for treason, murder, bigamy, or certain other offences committed in a foreign country; and to be extradited, if a refugee from justice, from countries which have treaties with Britain for that purpose.

It is sometimes suggested that the status of British subject carries with it 'political' rights. But that is hardly correct. Nowhere in the Empire is there any political privilege which a person can exercise by sole virtue of being a British subject, whether natural-born or naturalised. For example, a British subject cannot vote in any election unless qualified under the local electoral laws, which generally prescribe certain conditions of residence at least, and which often exclude females and always exclude minors-two important classes of British subjects. In some parts of the Empire there are also special restrictions which exclude persons of non-European descent from voting or holding certain public offices. Again, no British subject is free to migrate from one part of the Empire to another unless he or she can satisfy the requirements of the local immigration law. In some parts there are laws requiring that every immigrant must show a clean bill of health, sometimes also a clean social record, produce some financial guarantee, or pass an education test. Confronted with such laws a migrant British subject has no advantage within the Empire over a migrant foreigner, except in so far as the mere prestige of his status, or his right of appeal to the Sovereign against oppression, may gain for a British subject more respectful treatment than if he belonged to some petty State. But, while it is true that British subjecthood does not itself confer any political rights, it is also generally true that no political rights can be obtained without it. Thus the local laws in any part of the Empire generally require that a person must be a British subject as the first and main qualification for the franchise or for holding any important public office. But the local laws may prescribe further, as sometimes in Australia and South Africa, that the applicant must be a person of European descent. So, British subjecthood does not carry any political right, but it is none the less the most important among preliminary qualifications for acquiring political rights.

For the sake of clearness it is well to avoid the popular

habit of using 'British citizen' and 'British subject' as interchangeable expressions. We enjoy an advantage over the Americans, who use only citizen,' in that we are able and not ashamed to call ourselves subjects of a King or Emperor, and can thus avoid the confusion which arises when citizen and subject are used synonymously. According to Dr Westlake, a citizen is an entity unknown to English law, except in the narrow sense of the 'burgher of a municipal corporation which enjoys the purely honorary rank of a city.'* There may be a legal citizen of London or Bristol. But there is none of Britain or Canada, still less of the Empire as a single State. If in its conventional use 'citizen' is a democratic term and implies a right of voting, there are in practice citizens of the United Kingdom, or of Canada or any other Dominion (though not of India, where the form of government is non-elective). But there are still no citizens of the Empire, because there is no common government of the Empire in which all British subjects may take part according to a common electoral law. If we had Imperial Federation, the federal voters might conventionally be called British or Britannic citizens. Otherwise there can be no appropriate use for that expression; unless, indeed, it might be applied to the electors of the national parliaments in Britain and each self-governing Dominion under some future system in which each of those Governments would occupy a sovereign and identical status in relation to matters of foreign policy, defence, India, shipping, and other matters of common concern for which at present a superior responsibility is vested in the Government of Great Britain.

In February 1899 an inter-departmental committee was appointed by Sir Matthew White Ridley, who was then Home Secretary, to inquire into the 'doubts and difficulties' which had arisen as to the proper interpretation and administration of the naturalisation laws, and to suggest improvements. The report of this Committee, which appeared in 1901, is an interesting introduction to the whole question. Its matter falls into two parts: first, the history and meaning of the

* British Citizenship,' p. 11.