263

A.—4,

13 June, 1911.] Naturalisation. [Bth Day. Mr. CHURCHILL: No, it would not. There is a very strong feeling in this country that it ought not to be too easy for aliens to obtain naturalisation, and that feeling will increase, I think, with the development of the pensions and the insurance schemes, which play such a large part now-a-days, and in which there is a distinct difference made between naturalised and non-naturalised people in this country. I think there would be a difficulty, and at any rate, we attach as much importance to our five years' limitation as any of the representatives of the self-governing Dominions attach to their various standards. The CHAIRMAN: I think Sir Wilfrid Laurier rather suggested another method of treatment—that a naturalisation in Canada after a period of three years should become automatically at the expiration of five years naturalisation in the Empire as a whole. But there, again, there would be a difficulty, that if an American had resided three years in Canada and acquired his naturalisation, the moment he had got that paper in his pocket he might return to the United States and remain there, and at the end of five years he would for his own purposes have become a British citizen. Mr. CHURCHILL : No, it would not do. The CHAIRMAN: That is how the automatic suggestion would work, because we would not be able to say to him : " You have not resided for five years in the British Empire," nor should we be able to put to him the point: "Do you intend to reside in the British Empire in future ? " Sir JOSEPH WARD : That might be got over by a certificate that he had. Mr. BATCHELOR: May I say on the point raised by Sir Wilfrid Laurier that, as far as Australia is concerned, I do not think we could agree to that, because it would be giving each other country legislative powers practically which would govern local naturalisation. Take the case of New Zealand: they require no limitation at all as to residence. In Australia we require two years' probation. People could come after, say, getting a certificate from New Zealand to Australia, who had not completed anything like the two years we require, and, of course, under those circumstances they would have advantages by going first to New Zealand which they would not have if they came direct to Australia. Under those circumstances it would be over-riding our conditions. It seems to me that the method which was suggested by Mr. Churchill, which I am very pleased to say was practically on the same lines as that which I suggested, gets over nearly all these difficulties, the only difference appearing to be upon the question as to whether an Imperial Act is necessary, or whether we should set up some standard. Sir JOSEPH WARD : I think an Imperial Act is absolutely necessary. The CHAIRMAN : An Imperial adoptive Act. Mr. BATCHELOR : I think so. Some kind of standard would have to be set up by some authority which each of the Dominions by legislation could adopt. Whether the standard is set up by Imperial Act or not is not material to the Dominions ; it is not material to us, for instance. Probably the best way is to have an Imperial standard. Mr. CHURCHILL: Of course, the five years includes everything—the greater includes the less —and it would bring us all together. Mr. BATCHELOR : I do not think there are any conditions imposed by any of the States that are not also imposed by the United Kingdom, so that I see no difficulty at all. What each of the Dominions can do is to slightly alter their own legislation, giving power to adopt the Imperial Act or the Imperial standard, and it seems to me that that gets over all the difficulties which have been suggested.

34—A. 4.