British subjects born in Brazil, and that the Brazilian minister had stated to him that it was proposed to bring forward a law in the Brazilian chambers providing that up to the age of 21 years, sons born in Brazil of British residents should remain under the control of their parents, and that on attaining their majority they should be allowed to choose between British and Brazilian nationality. Mr. Jerningham remarks in this dispatch that the French claimed complete exemption for the sons of French subjects thus situated, and that though the Brazilian government did not acknowledge the claim, they did not attempt to force such Frenchmen into their army. Lord Clarendon instructed Mr. Jerningham to say that Her Majesty's government agreed to the proposed clause, but that they hoped that "either by legislative enactments, or by the course hitherto adopted by the Brazilian government, no British subject will be called upon to perform military service." It appeared subsequently that there had been some misunderstanding between Mr. Jerningham and the Brazilian minister, and that the proposed clause was intended to apply reciprocally to the subjects of those States, the laws of which acknowledged the children of Brazilians born within their territories to be Brazilians, and would not, therefore, affect British subjects.3 Lord Clarendon then directed Her Majesty's minister to inquire whether the Brazilian government really intended to carry out the principle of reciprocity, and to place children born of British subjects in Brazil on exactly the same footing with regard to military service as that in which the children of Brazilian subjects were placed in England; as the imposition on them of forced military service would be plainly inconsistent with such a principle, "for, although a power does exist in this country in certain contingencies, very unlikely to occur, of resorting to the ballot for raising mili tia, (in which case, however, substitutes would be allowed,) yet, in point of fact, both the regular army and the militia are recruited entirely by volunteers, and there is therefore, practically, no forced military service in England."4 At the close of 1853, there was a change of ministry in Brazil, and in April, 1854, Mr. Howard (who had succeeded Mr. Jerningham) called the attention of the new government to this subject, but without receiving any reply.5 He again pressed it on their attention in August, when the foreign secretary, Senhor Limpo de Abreo, promised to look into the matter, but "gave no hope of an alteration in the laws of nationality, saying that he thought they could not constitutionally he interpreted in the manner in which the late minister for foreign affairs, Senhor Paulino, had in view; that such an alteration would meet with considerable opposition in the chambers, and that he himself doubted its expediency." Being urged to take some steps to bring the question to a conclusion in October, 1854, Senhor de Abreo repeated that it presented great constitutional difficulties, and could not be solved without the concurrence of the legislature.' This closed the correspondence. It is to be observed that neither in 1852 nor 1854 do there appear to have been any particular cases reported in which the sons of British subjects were forced into the Brazilian service, and it may, therefore, be presumed that the Brazilian authorities continued to act upon an unofficial arrangement come to with Mr. Jerningham in 1853, by which such persons were practically exempted from the conscription.8 In December, 1865, Mr. Spence, a member of the English bar, who had been born in Brazil, applied for the appointment of law adviser and translator to Her Majesty's mission at Rio de Janeiro. Mr. Spence (in reply to an observation respecting the inconvenience which might be occasioned by a person whom the Brazilian government could claim as their subject being employed in such a capacity,) stated "that although there can be no question, according to article 6 of the Brazilian constitution, that from having been born in Brazil, though of British parents, I became a Brazilian subject, I respectfully submit that from having (when called to the bar in 1858) sworn allegiance to Her Majesty, I lost my Brazilian nationality, according to article 7 of the same constitution. It is true that the words of article 7 are 'naturalization,' but the taking of the oath of allegiance would, no doubt, be held equivalent to naturalization. But even if that were not so, the acceptance by a Brazilian subject (without the license of the Emperor) of any office from a foreign government would cause the loss of Brazilian nationality, as may be seen on reference to clause 2 of article 7 of the same constitution."9 Mr. Spence forwarded translations of the articles of the constitution referred to: 1 Mr. Jerningham, No. 20; April 2, 1853. 2 To Mr. Jerningham, No. 22; July 8, 1853. To Mr. Jerningham, No. 30; August 8, 1853. Mr. Jerningham, No. 85; September 13, 1853. To Mr. Howard, No 14; October 31, 1853. 4 To Mr. Howard, No. 14; October 31, 1853. 5 Mr. Howard, No. 2: April 25, 1854. 6 Mr. Howard, No. 162; August 11, 1854. Mr. Howard, No. 199; October 13, 1854. Mr. Jerningham.. No. 20; April 2, 1853. 9 To Mr. Spence; December 20, 1865. Mr. Spence; December 26, 1865, WHO ARE BRAZILIAN CITIZENS? “ARTICLE 6.—1. Those born in Brazil, either free or freedmen, although the father be a foreigner, if not resident in the service of his nation. "2. Children of a Brazilian father, and the natural children of a Brazilian mother, born in a foreign country, who may come to have a domicile in this country. "3. The children of a Brazilian father who may be in a foreign country in the service of the Emperor, although they do not require a domicile in Brazil. "4. All those who, born in Portugal and her possessions, were resident in Brazil at. the time when the independence was proclaimed in the provinces where they lived, and shall have expressly adhered to the said independence, or impliedly by continuing their residence in Brazil. "5. Foreigners naturalized, whatever may be their religion. THOSE WHO ARE DEPRIVED OF SUCH RIGHTS. "ARTICLE 7-1. Those who have become naturalized in a foreign country. "2. Those who, without the Emperor's license, accept any employment, pension, or decoration, from any foreign government. "3. Those sentenced to banishment." CHINA. Difficulties having arisen with regard to the claims to British protection to Britishborn subjects of Chinese origin within the Chinese Empire, it has been arranged that they should wear a distinctive dress, and a government notification to that effect has accordingly been published at Hong-Kong. "The following circular from his excellency Sir Rutherford Alcock, K. C. B., with its inclosure, relative to British subjects of Chinese descent residing or being in Chinese territory, is published for general information. "GOVERNMENT OFFICES, "Hong-Kong, November 2, 1868." "J. GARDINER AUSTIN, "Colonial Secretary Administering the Government. "Circular No. 10. "PEKIN, October 7, 1868. "SIR: Pursuant to instructions from Her Majesty's secretary of state for foreign affairs, I have issued the inclosed notification regulating the conditions under which persons of Chinese descent, who are British subjects, may reside or travel in China under British protection. "You will observe that it is left entirely optional to such persons to claim the status of British subjects within the Chinese territories or not, as they may see fit. But in the event of their electing to sink their British nationality, and reside or travel as Chinese among Chinese, they cannot claim any exemption from the jurisdiction and laws of the country they adopt of their own free will, and after due notice of the consequences. "You will give all due publicity and effect within your jurisdiction to the inclosed, in conformity with the provisions of the Queen's order in council of 1865. "Your obedient servant, "To Her Majesty's CONSUL, &c., &c., &c., Shanghai.” "RUTHERFORD ALCOCK.. "Notification. "Whereas many persons of Chinese descent, who are or claim to be British subjects, go to reside or travel in the dominions of the Emperor of China, and whereas serious difficulty exists in distinguishing such British subjects from natives amenable to Chi nese laws only, and accordingly great practical inconvenience frequently results to the parties themselves, and to the authorities of both countries; and whereas it is desirable, with a view to the maintenance of order and good government of British subjects of Chinese descent resorting to China, and for the maintenance of friendly relations between British subjects and Chinese subjects and authorities, that a remedy should be provided for such inconvenience: Therefore, by the authority and power vested in me by the eighty-fifth section of the China and Japan order in council, 1865, I do declare and order that all British subjects of Chinese descent shall, while residing or being in Chinese territory, discard the Chinese costume and adopt some other dress or costume whereby they may readily be distinguished from the native population. And I do further warn all British subjects of Chinese descent so residing or being in the Chinese dominions as aforesaid, that in the event of.their infringing or not observing this order and regulation, they shall not be entitled to claim British protection or interference on their behalf in any court of justice or elsewhere in the Chinese dominions. "And I do further order that every British subject of Chinese descent who shall sne in any Chinese court of justice, or appear in public before the authorities of the empire, shall be and is hereby required to pay all due respect to the Chinese authorities according to the custom and usage of the country, save and except that such British subject shall not be bound or required to observe any custom or ceremony whereby he would admit that he is a subject of His Imperial Majesty. "Given under my hand at Pekin this sixth day of October, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-eight. "RUTHERFORD ALCOCK, "Her Britannic Majesty's Envoy Extraordinary, Minister Plenipotentiary, and Chief Superintendent of Trade." COLOMBIA-NEW GRANADA. A correspondence took place in 1847-48-49 respecting the lawsaffecting aliens in New Granada.' This was renewed in 1855. The principal subjects treated of were the law as to intestate estates and a decree which had been issued respecting claims for losses suffered during the civil war. In 1861 Mr. Griffith requested to be informed whether Mr. Bransby, a British subject, residing in New Granada, and who had accepted an appointment as interpreter in the New Granadian civil service, was to be considered a British subject. Mr. Griffith was instructed that Mr. Bransby had not, by accepting such employment, forfeited his allegiance, or ceased to be a British subject; and it was not suggested that he had formally renounced his British allegiance, or taken any oath of allegiance to the republic of New Granada. His rights, therefore, to protection as a British subject, in all matters not immediately connected with his employment as interpreter, were unimpaired, and, excepting as to such matters, he was as much entitled to British protection as he was before he accepted that employment. In May, 1862, Mr. Griffith reported that the United States minister had communicated to him confidentially the instructions which he had received frone Mr. Seward respecting the protection to be afforded to United States citizens domiciled in New Granada. 3 These instructions were to the following effect: Citizens temporarily visiting New Granada, but retaining their domicile in the United States, were to be afforded protection against any impositions of the government there for its support and maintenance. Citizens of the United States, no matter how they acquired that title, who have gone to New Granada, become domiciliated there, and are pursuing business, or otherwise living there, without definite and manifest intentions of returning to the United States, are subject to all the laws of New Granada affecting property or material rights, exactly the same as citizens of New Granada. Mr. Griffith adds that he has been informed that the New York commission for the liquidation of United States claims arising out of the collision at Panama in 1856, acting upon those principles, had ignored all the claims brought forward by United States citizens who were domiciled on the Isthmus at the time of the collision. In June, 1862, Mr. Griffith forwarded a copy of an official decree declaring that for 49; 1848. To Mr. O'Leary, No. 3: 1:49 *To Mr. O'Leary, No. 15; 1835. ** These September 2, 1861. To Mr. Griffith. No, Mr. O'Leary, No. 11; March 31, 1847. To. Mr. O'Leary, No. 17: July 16, 1847. *Mr. O'Leary, No. 3: 1848. Te Mr. O'Leary, No. 13; 1848. *Mr. O'Leary, No. *Mr. O'Leary, No. 26; 1855. Mr. O'Leary, No. 36; 1855. papers are missing from the volumes.] Mr. Griffith, No. 80; 68; November 16, 1861. Mr. Griffith, No. 38; May 15, 1862. eigners domiciled "in the republic are to be allowed to acquire real property in the same manner as natives." This decree further provided that foreigners or "immigrants" should be naturalized from the moment they enter the republic, and were to be entitled to all the rights and be subjected to all the obligations of native citizens. For the space of 20 years, however, they were to be exempted from military service, except in the case of foreign war, from all direct or extraordinary contributions, and from all public employment, save that which miglit be imposed on them in the municipal district where they happened to reside. Mr. Griflith was instructed that "although such a law was unusual, it was competent for a country to make and enforce it, without furnishing any ground of complaint to foreign states. The distinction drawn by it between commorant and resident foreigners seemed, on the whole, reasonable and just. The foreigner who, by the relations of property, marriage, profession, or business, and length of residence, had incorporated himself into a state, certainly owed a qualified allegiance to it, and it would be entitled to extend its protection to him with reference to all other states but that of his origin or birth. Such foreigners are truly and practically citizens of the state which they have adopted, and cannot complain that they are liable to the obligations of native citizens, with whom they are placed on an equality in every other respect." On the 19th of April, 1865, a law was passed defining the condition of foreigners in the United States of Colombia.3 Article 2 classifies foreigners into domiciled and transient residents. 3. Domiciled foreigners are those who establish themselves permanently, or publicly declare their intention of so establishing themselves, or have resided two years. Temporary residents are exempted from military service or office. Domiciled aliens are exempted from military service, forced loans, and all personal employment or office of a permanent character. 5. Repudiates any responsibility for damages suffered by aliens in time of war, they in such cases being placed on the same footing as natives. 6. Aliens interfering in civil or international contests to become subject to all the penalties and duties of Colombians. 7. This law not to interfere with treaty stipulations. Mr. O'Leary, on this law being communicated to him, immediately remonstrated against article 5, the practical inutility of which had indeed been remarked on by the Colombian President, who had opposed its being passed. Mr. O'Leary's remonstrance was framed on the instructions forwarded to Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires when a similar law was enacted in 1847, and was approved by Her Majesty's government.* In October, 1865, Mr. O'Leary5 requested to be informed whether the children, born in England, of Mr. Montoya, a native Colombian naturalized in England, were entitled to exemption from the Colombian military service as British subjects. Mr. O'Leary added that, by the Colombian constitution, the offspring of Colombian parents born abroad were to be considered as citizens "when domiciled in Colombia." Mr. O'Leary' was instructed that "This is a question of Colombian municipal law; but upon the statement contained in your dispatch, it appears that the children of Sefor Montoya, who is a native Colombian, are domiciled in Colombia, and that they are subject to the obligations of Colombian citizenship. The fact that Señor Montoya is a naturalized British subject does not exempt him from the operation of the law of the State of his birth and natural allegiance while he resides in that State." DENMARK. The case of Mr. Rainals, Briiish vice-consul at Copenhagen, which led to a long correspondence in 1863, illustrates the operation of the Danish laws with regard to the claim of the Danish Crown to the allegiance of aliens domiciled in Denmark. The correspondence commenced with a demand made upon Mr. Rainals for the payment of a dog-tax in 1860, Mr. Rainals pleaded exemption as an alien. The Danish government declared that he was a Danish subject, but offered to remit the tax as an act of comity; but Mr. Rainals refused such a compromise, and insisted upon being acknowledged to be a British subject. Upon this the Danish government declared that their view of his nationality was borne out 1. By the fact of his having sworn allegiance to the King of Denmark on obtaining a "borgerbrev" in 1848. To Mr. O'Leary, No. 28; July 28, Mr. Griffith, No. 46; June 20, 1862. 2To Mr. Griffith, No. 29; September 30. 1862. Mr. O'Leary, No. 27; May 10, 1865. 4To Mr. O'Leary, No. 11; March 21, 1847. 1-65. Mr. O'Leary, No. 65; October 20, 1865. To Mr. O'Leary, Paget, No. 132; June 2, 1863. 2. By his having been born in Denmark. With regard to the "borgerbrev," it appeared that in 1848 Mr. Rainals had settled as a broker at Elsinore, and in order to obtain permission to carry on his profession had applied to the mayor of that town for a "borgerbrev" or freedom of the city. When this was issued to him, the Elsinore authorities alleged that he had signed the following paper: "In the year 1848, on the 11th of May, appeared before the magistracy Harry Thomas Alfred Rainals, born at Copenhagen, aged thirty-one years, and demanded to obtain borgherskab (rights of a burgher) as clearer and agent for payment of sound dues. "As he has satisfactorily proved his earlier respectability, and, in accordance with evidence produced, has been appointed consular agent for the United States of North America, whereby he is free from serving in the militia, nothing could be said against the said demand, and the said H. T. Rainals was, after having taken the usual burgher oath,' (thus worded, 'I promise and swear to be true and faithful to His Majesty our Most Gracious Hereditary Lord and King Frederick VII, to defend with my utmost power and ability his realm and land from harm, as well as to be dutiful and obedient to the burgermaster and council which are now in power and to those who come after them; and finally to act toward my fellow-citizens as it becomes and befits an honest man to do. So help me God and His Holy Word,') furnished with the rights of a burgher (borgherskab) as clearer and agent for payment of sound dues to Elsinore. "H. T. A. RAINALS. "ROGERT.” Mr. Rainals asserted that he had never taken any oath such as is here inserted; that the copy of the entry given to him did not include the part between brackets; and that in order to take an oath he must have held up three fingers, which he distinctly recollected he had not done. He further showed that he had resigned his "borgerbrev" in 1859. Sir A. Paget then requested the Danish government to explain whether they considered the mere fact of obtaining a “borgerbrev" constituted a person a Danish subject. The foreign secretary replied (May 28, 1863): “Quant à la question positive à savoir si un sujet Britannique en prêtant le serment de bourgeois devient sujet Danois, il est de fait qu'en prêtant le serment il se fixe dans ce pays, et en se fixant et en prenant domicile en Danemark il devient sujet Danois et entre dans tous les droits et tous les devoirs civils et sociaux d'un sujet Danois. Pour ce qui regarde les droits et les devoirs politiques, ceux-ci n' appartiennent qua'à ceux qui sont en possession de l'indigenat qui, s'il n'est pas acquis par le fait même de la naissance dans ce pay, ne peut être obtenu qu'en vertu d'une loi. Quant au côté négatif, à savoir, si un sujet Britannique en acquérant les droits et en se soumettant aux devoirs d'un sujet Danois perd sa qualité de sujet Britannique, c'est là une question dont la solution paraît dépendre le plus spécialment de la législation Britannique. Pour ce qui est de notre législation relativement à ce point, celle-ci ne s'oppose pas à ce que la coexistance de deux nationalités puisse être admise dans la personne du même individu; seulement, dans le principe, sa qualité de sujet étranger ne doit porter ancune atteinte à l'accomplissement des devoirs qui lui incombent comme sujet Danois." With regard to his having been born in Denmark, Mr. Rainals cited an opinion given by the attorney-general of Denmark on a recent occasion when a bill respecting the naturalization of certain foreigners had been discussed in the chambers. A decree of January 15, 1776, provided that children of foreigners, born in Denmark, can claim the rights of Danish citizenship after a permanent residence in that country up to their eighteenth year. The attorney-general gave it as his opinion, though other lawyers differed on the subject, that by the terms of this decree the children of aliens born in Denmark were capable of being admitted to the rights of natural-born Danish subjects; and Mr. Rainals accordingly argued that this was conclusive proof that they were not consid ered to be natural-born subjects. Moreover, one of the persons for whose naturalization the act under discussion made provision was stated to have been born in Denmark. Sir Augustus Paget' now referred the question for the consideration of Lord Russell; and, after further information on the points of law raised in it had been proenred from Copenhagen, Lord Russell, under the advice of the Queen's advocate, instructed him that "it is not denied that Mr. Rainals was born in Denmark, and the opinion of the Danish lawyers so far coincides with that expressed by M. Hall that the renunciation by Mr. Rainals of his rights as a citizen of Elsinore does not relieve him from the obligations of allegiance to the Crown of Denmark. "It is admitted that he obtained the 'borgerbrev,' and he must, under these circumstances, be deemed to have taken the usual preliminary oath. This oath has been since modified. (See Sir A. Paget's Despatch, p. 1-16.) To Sir A. Paget, No. 141; August 26, 1863. |