BRITISH CITIZENSHIP.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 15553, 7 September 1912, Page 9

BRITISH CITIZENSHIP.

Some ten months ago.Mr K. B. Sargant, stirred by a discussion nt the Imperial Conference on Naturalisation, contributed to the journal of tho Boyal Colomal Institute «ui article on British citizenship which served to provoke an expression of opinion on tho subject from Mr James Bryce, Professor Wcstlnkc, Sir Samuel Griffith, Mr Malan (Minister of Education for' United South Africa), and other notable jurists and men of affairs throughout the Kmpire, and the whole of these contributions have now been collected and reprinted in booklet form under the titlo "British Citizenship." There is much in this littlo volume that is calculated to make tho reader ponder if ho lias really a thirst for exactitude in definition. In the beginning Mr Sargant asks what appears to be a simple question—namely, " What do we mean by 'British citizenship?" And. in the end it is difficult to bo sure whether ho or anybody else who discourses on the subject has supplied the answer. If one thing is more certain than another it is tho' extraordinary rango of view that is possible when such a topic as Britisli citizenship is under consideration. The symposium presented by Mr Sargant is in this aspect rather bewildering. Tho expression "a British citizen" is apparently capable of being used with so many different shades of meaning that one learned contributor to the discussion on the subject has been inspired to find refuge in Betsy Prig's immortal phrase "1 don't belicv'o there ain't no sich a person." In spite of the occasional uso of the term by Cabinet Ministers and others, "British citizen" has no intelligibio meaning, he judges, except as a synonym of "British subject." But -when another contributor proceeds to make it perfectly clear that nil British subjects aro not necessarily British citizens we begin to realise that for all its seeming elementary character Mr Sarganl's question contains certain diabolical elements. Thcro is an extraordinary difference of connotation in the expression "British citizenship" as used by different writers. At tho last Imperial Conference Mr Churchill said he welcomed with the greatest satisfaction the strong statements made by every one of the representatives of the dominions in favour of tho desirability of securing a uniform and world-wide status of British citizenship which would protect tho holder of that certificate wherever he might be. Sir Wilfrid Laurier hud pointed out that whilo thousands of American citizens, becoming naturalised, wero British subjects in Canada, yet it they came to Great Britain they wcro still American citizens. What Mr Sargant has been asking amounts to this: Is British citizenship to bo regarded as progressive 'in character (and multiform, or is only tho full political status of tho British Isles, intended thereby? If it is progressive, ho asks, can we extend the term to adult males among the Basiltos, for example, whoso political institutions aro quite rudimentary, but who are all equally citizens or non-citizens? Are tho Maoris, with an inferior political status to British subjects of European descent within tho samo Dominion, or women in England with the municipal franchise only, properly within the pale of British citizenship? Many of the opinions that have been offered on the whole subject are admirable even if their conjoint effect is not apparently to lead us anywhere in particular. It is the ambiguity which attaches to tho word "citizen" which accounts largely for this result. The most concise view is perhaps that of Sir Frank Swcltcnhain, who says: "I havo always felt that tho term 'British citizen' applies to citizens of the United Kingdom only. ... In British colonies, British India, etc., I consider there are British subjects, cither born or naturalised." The status even of Britisli subjects outsido of England is liable, as we know, to considerable variation, Hie mailer of * their complexion sometimes imposing trying restrictions on persons who are desirous of migrating from ono portion of tho Empire to another. In tho opinion of Sir Everard im Thurn, all persons who owe allegianco to tho King aro Britisli subjects, and only some of these— and that by a separable accident-are citizens of anywhere; and none are "British citizens" except by a misuse of language. For example, he points out, all .persons born or naturalised in Now South. Wales aro British subjects, but not British citizens, though they may be —probably always of Sydney or somo other town in tho same Stale, or c\cn, by a slight stretch of language, of that State itself. Mr James Brycc takes a broader view of the question. As respect the use of. the words "subject" and "citizen," ho points out that whilo "subject" is the technical term which is always used in our statutes and is rooted in the conception of allegi-ance,-there is no reason why the term "citizen" should not bo used if preferrcd. "The really essential point," he says, " seems to mo lo bo that wo should dwell upon the fact that the citizenship which gives a man or woman full private rights, entitling him to be treated everywhere in the British Empire as equal in respect of all private rights to all his fellow subjects, is the basis of our whole Imperial conception, and is the really great servico which our law is rendering to every inhabitant of the British Kmpire who owes allegianco to tho Crown. Political rights aro. a totally different matter. They may vary ncording to the competence which tho British subject is deemed by law to possess for taking part in tho government of the country in which he resides, and the distinction between tho private side and the public sido of a subject or citizen ought always to be kept clearly before our mind.''