undertake the final adjustment of technical points in a matter of this kind, without the assistance of their departmental advisers. But Mr Harcourt, directing the Dominions Department, pushed on the work. As before, the purpose of the Bill was twofold, (a) to reform the naturalisation law of the United Kingdom, and (b) to give extra-territorial effect to certain legislation of the Dominions. By November (1911) the new Bill had been approved by the South African Government, who had been among the keenest critics of the previous draft; and by the end of the next year (1912) there was wanting only the endorsement of the Canadian Government. Thanks to the initiative of Mr E. M. Macdonald, the member for Pictou, the subject was thrice discussed by the Commons at Ottawa, first on December 4, 1911, next on February 2, 1912, and again on January 29, 1913. These discussions were on a high level, displaying a full appreciation of the Imperial importance of the reform and of the technical difficulties attending it. The new Government (Mr Borden having succeeded Sir Wilfrid Laurier since the Conference) explained that the delay in giving their approval was due to their anxiety to prevent any impairment of the autonomy conferred by the British North America Act of 1867, which is the charter of the Dominion. Papers having been called for, a valuable memorandum was prepared by Mr Thomas Mulvey, Under-Secretary of State. In the third debate Mr Doherty, the Minister of Justice, explained the position in a very lucid and interesting speech, which deserves more than a passing mention. From a Dominion point of view the Imperial Bill purported, he pointed out, to do two things; to make naturalisation in the United Kingdom effective in the Dominions and elsewhere; and to confer on the Dominion legislatures the power, provided they adopted' certain sections of the Act, to create a naturalisation which would be effective in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. But as to the first, he protested that only the Canadian Parliament, not the British Parliament, could constitutionally give to persons naturalised outside Canada, e.g. in Britain, the status of British subjects in Canada. This was a flaw which he thought ought to be remedied in the form of the Bill. And as to the second, he considered that the Dominion Parliaments were not placed on a footing of equality' with the British Parliament; because, under the Bill as drafted, their powers were made conditional upon their adopting certain sections of that extraneous measure. The political argument upon which Mr Doherty based these views was briefly as follows. Legally the British Parliament can legislate as it pleases for the whole Empire or any part of it. But legally is not the same as constitutionally. Constitutionalism has regard to considerations of national honour and good faith'; which would be violated if the British Parliament passed legislation impairing any powers conferred on a Dominion by previous legislation. Section 91 of the B.N.A. Act had delegated to the Canadian Parliament the power to legislate in regard to naturalisation, and that power was limited only by what was understood to be the meaning of 'naturalisation' at that time (1867). Some Canadians had gone so far as to contend that this section gave Canada all the power required for conferring the complete, not merely the local, status of British subject.* If so, no Imperial legislation would now be necessary, but only an amendment by the Canadian Parliament of its own law, by deleting the restrictive words, within Canada,' wherever they occurred. But, he held, that view was wrong. The power delegated by section 91 of the B.N.A. Act must be interpreted in the light of the conception which in 1867 prevailed in England as to the effect of the status conferred by naturalisation. What that conception was could be ascertained by comparing certain earlier legislation in Britain, in the forties, which clearly showed that the British Parliament had, at the outset, proceeded on the assumption that naturalisation was in itself a local thing,' i.e. that the status conferred by it was of local effect only. The power actually exercised at that time by the British Parliament, and, therefore, the similar power delegated to Canada, was evidently the power only of creating a local, not a world-wide, status. No doubt the transference of power had been complete, and could not constitutionally now be resumed from Canada by the British Parliament. But in the present * Cf. a characteristic article by Mr J. S. Ewart, K.C., in the Canadian Law Times, Nov. 1911. Bill the British Parliament was enlarging for itself the scope of the status conferred in Britain by naturalisation; and some Imperial legislation was required for similarly enlarging the scope of the status which Canada could confer by virtue of the power delegated in 1867. The Canadian Government, recognising that necessity, would give their approval to the introduction at Westminster of the present Bill as soon as the technical flaw in it had been amended. Mr Doherty was able to state that the British Government, after first disputing his interpretation of the clause in question, had agreed that he was probably right, and had readily promised to make the required correction of the draft. In reply to a question, he intimated that as soon as the Canadian Government should hear that the corrected Bill had been enacted' at Westminster, they would introduce the requisite legislation at Ottawa. Mr Doherty's political argument rather discourages the idea that the reserve power of the British Parliament to legislate for the whole Empire has still a potential value in the interests of Imperial unity. But that is an incidental reflection which cannot here be further pursued. In June last the British Government took occasion to promise that on receiving Canada's endorsement of the revised draft they would at the first opportunity introduce the Bill and press for its speedy passage. At the end of August it was reported from Canada that the Dominion Government had met that condition. Apparently it remains only for the British and Dominion Governments to redeem their pledges. When the scheme which has thus ripened is carried into effect, which should be accomplished before the next session of the Imperial Conference (1915), we need not think that finality has been reached. The perpetuation of a 'local' status, alongside a world-wide status, must tend to popular confusion. In the debates at Ottawa the opinion was expressed that ninety or more per cent. of aliens in Canada would be content when, after three years' residence in the Dominion, they were able to obtain the local' certificate and acquire the privileges of Canadian citizenship. The Government replied that, even so, the remainder who recognised the value of the full status would have the means of obtaining it which had hitherto been lacking altogether. Questioned as to whether it might not be the future policy of the Government to discontinue local naturalisation, Mr Doherty replied by suggesting that, while it might be advantageous to continue the three-year system for local purposes, there would be no necessity to call it 'naturalisation' at all, and thus the prospect of popular confusion might be reduced. That suggestion may have been inspired by the report of the Committee of 1899, which deprecated the use of the term 'naturalisation' for the status conferred under colonial laws. In any event, the passage of this legislation will undoubtedly mark an important development in the political relationship of the Dominions to Britain. The principle of recognising the extra-territorial effect of Dominion laws has an important bearing on other matters, e.g. questions of merchant shipping law, which have long been the subject of controversy on the constitutional point. But the larger aspect of the impending reform must always lie in its effect on the development of a Britannic citizenship. Is there to be a common citizenship of the Empire, as the corollary to uniform subjecthood under the common Crown? And, if so, is that citizenship to be common to all the many races within the Empire? Could an Empire parliament enact an Empire naturalisation law, having regard to the 'colour' difficulty which the more elastic system of the Imperial Conference has been able to get round? Or, is there to be no uniformity of citizenship, but instead an equality of national rights, each national legislature determining for itself on what conditions subjects of the Crown may become local citizens, and concerting policies through the Imperial Conference for investing these local citizenships with a common measure of Britannic privileges and Britannic responsibilities? That is the grand, ulterior issue which the present Bill opens up, but leaves for the future to decide.* RICHARD JEBB. * Since the above was written, information has been received of official correspondence continuing with the Dominions. It is to be hoped that this only means that the other Dominions are being informed of the alterations made in the Bill at the desire of Canada. One would imagine that such alterations would be readily approved by them. Art. 2.-THE PLAYS OF BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER. 1. The Works of Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. Edited by Arnold Glover and A. R. Waller. Ten vols. Cambridge University Press, 1905-12. 2. The Works of Beaumont and Fletcher. Variorum Edition, under the general direction of A. H. Bullen. Vols. I-IV. London: Bell and Bullen, 1904-12. 3. Select Plays by Beaumont and Fletcher. Edited, with an introduction by Professor G. P. Baker (of Harvard). London: Dent (Everyman's Library), n.d. 4. The Maid's Tragedy and Philaster. By Francis Beaumont and John Fletcher. Edited by Ashley H. Thorndike. Boston, U.S.A., and London: Heath (Belles-Lettres Series), 1906. 5. The Knight of the Burning Pestle, and A King and no King. By Francis Beaumont. Edited by Raymond M. Alden. Boston, U.S.A., and London: Heath (The Belles-Lettres Series), 1910. 6. The Cambridge History of English Literature. Vol. vi. Cambridge University Press, 1910. THE system of collaboration among Elizabethan dramatists, which mainly arose from the demand of actors and managers for a constant supply of new plays, sometimes successfully united such antagonistic spirits as Jonson and Marston, or men whose genius was less happily exercised apart, as in the case of Middleton and Rowley; but its fine flower is the association of Beaumont and Fletcher, which sprang rather from natural affinity, 'a wonderfull consimility of phansy,' as Aubrey phrases it, a reciprocal liking so strong that the same authority gives them a community of house, bed, and even clothes. Its memory perhaps echoes in Don Frederick's words in 'The Chances' (Act ii, scene 2), first spoken long after Beaumont's death: 'He's of a noble strain, my kinsman, Lady, And one faith free between us; do not fear him, He's truly honest'; and in a fine passage in 'The Lovers' Progress' (ii, 1), which contains the expressive line : 'More than companions, twins in all our actions.' |