Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

The Pamphlet Collection of Sir Robert Stout: Volume 80

Editor's Note

page break

Editor's Note.

Every schoolboy might be expected to know what is meant by British Citizenship. But the fact is that the answer to this seemingly elementary question is far from easy. In an interesting article which we publish this month Mr. E. B. Sargant points out how loosely the terms "British citizen" and "British subject" are used and interchanged even by the Empire's leading statesmen, and how unsatisfactory is the guidance of learned authorities in the matter. It would be easy to extend his selection of illustrations, and also to emphasise the practical importance of the question, by dipping into the mass of documents in which, for instance, the grievances of British Indians in South Africa or British Columbia have, from time to time, been set forth. Such phrases as the "rights of British citizenship," or the "rights of British subjects," or the "liberties" of one or other, are frequently used in protest against legislative or administrative action which the responsible parties uphold as perfectly legitimate. Those who argue, not without reason, that the first essential of Imperial thinking is to define the meanings of conventional terms, and to call things by their right names, might more usefully occupy themselves in elucidating the significance of "British citizen" and "British subject," than in seeking a substitute for "British Empire," What are the rights, privileges, liberties, or responsibilities of a British subject? Is a citizen the same as a subject? If not, what is the difference? And does "British" applied to citizen mean the same as "British" applied to subject? As Mr. Sargant reminds us, subject and citizen are terms inherited from ancient conditions of society widely dissimilar to those of to-day. Conventionally speaking, the instinct of democracy associates "citizen" with a right of voting, in regard to which there is little prospect of uniformity within the Empire; while the idea of Imperial unity postulates a certain status held in common by all "subjects" who are born or naturalised under the British flag. On that view, all citizens would be British subjects, but all subjects would not be citizens; and British citizens would mean citizens of Britain only, which seems unsatisfactory. In point of fact, a common status of British subject has not yet been established, though lately a strenuous effort has been made, by the machinery of the Imperial Conference, to rectify the anomalies whereby a British subject in one part of the Empire may be a foreigner in another. Simple as the problem seems at first sight, it is vastly complicated when statesmen come to deal with it, largely owing to differences of opinion in various parts of the Empire about the colour question, and the specification of undesirable immigrants. The records of the Imperial Conference, especially those of the last two sessions, certainly seem to show that the effort at improvement has been embarrassed by the absence of any definite understanding as to what constitutes the rights of a British subject within the Empire. In foreign countries a British subject, when he finds himself in danger or trouble, may realise with precision both the privileges and the limitations of his status; but not as a migrant within the Empire. It is to be hoped that some of those who have studied this most important question will follow up Mr. Sargant's observations.