But, still in the context of administration, the needs of liberty go yet further. There has accreted today about the departments of state a type of discretionary power which seems to me full of danger unless it is exercised under proper safeguards. Examples of it are the power of the Postmaster-General in the United States over the mails and of the Home Secretary in England over requests from aliens for naturalization. An alien applies to the Home Secretary for naturalization. He answers innumerable questions, and presents certificates of good character from citizens who testify on oath to his standing. He has resided in the country for at least five years and he will not, of course, normally venture to apply unless his record is adequate. A request is published in the press for any information about him and, after a due interval, the Home Secretary makes a decision about his case. He has, of course, pursued his own inquiries, and he has, presumably, received information about the applicant upon which his action is based. Now the point that disturbs me is the fact that where a certificate of naturalization is refused, the grounds for rejection are never, even privately to the applicant, made known. He is refused privileges which may be vital to him and his family in the background of accusations which may, doubtless, be true, but may also be completely without foundation and capable, were opportunity afforded, of being immediately and decisively refuted. And so great is the discretionary power of the Minister that he may even substitute his own will for that of the legislature: the Act, for instance, demands a five-year period of residence. The late Home Secretary, Lord Brentford, announced that while he was in office he would grant no certificate unless the applicant had resided in England continuously for a period of thirteen years. It seems to me that this power to deny admission to citizenship, as it is exercised, is a complete denial of natural justice. No person ought to be condemned by accusations he is not given the opportunity to refute. Anyone who wishes to give testimony in a case of this kind ought surely to prove his _bona fides_ by submitting to cross-examination by the applicant or his representative. I should like, therefore, to see the possibility of an appeal from the decision of the Home Secretary to a judge in chambers where the latter would, on a case stated by the Department, hear such evidence as the applicant chose to bring for its refutation and then only make a final decision. Anything less than this seems to me a wanton abuse of freedom; and, _mutatis mutandis_, this type of safeguard seems to me urgent wherever a Minister is given a discretionary power which affects the liberty of the subject.