"I infer also that he obtained this 'borgerbrev' on the footing of a Danish subject, and without the delay of five years, which would have been necessary for a foreigner. It appears that, though by returning the 'borgerbrev,' he is replaced in his former position, he nevertheless remains subject to whatever obligations attach to a person born in Denmark and subsequently resident there."

In 1864 a case occurred at Saint Croix in which the Danish authorities claimed to administer to the estate of a deceased British subject who had taken out a "borgerbrey" in that island.

As the person in question had been domiciled at Saint Croix at the time of his death, Her Majesty's consul was not instructed to contest the interpretations put by the authorities on the effect of taking out such a burgher license; but it was considered that some arrangement should be made with them whereby the absent heirs and next of kin of a British subject so situated should be apprised, by notice in the London Gazette, of the intended distribution of such property by Danish tribunals.

FRANCE.

The registers of the correspondence between England and France for the last fiveand-twenty years have been searched; but they do not present many cases of interest. Lord Cowley forwarded, in 1855, a report by M. Treitt on a question between the French and British governments respecting the administration to the intestate estate of a naturalized Brazilian subject, named Braga.

Señor Braga died at Paris, leaving a son born in Brazil, of a Brazilian mother, and a second wife, a Frenchwoman, with two sons born in France.

The Brazilian consul first proceeded to administer to the estate on behalf of the eldest son, who was absent in Brazil, and then on behalf of the two younger sons, "enfants mineurs nés en France, mais sujets Brésiliens aux termes de la loi Française." The widow opposed the consul's interference in regard to the younger sons, and appealed to the "Tribunal Civil de Première Instance," which, by two summary judgments, confirmed the consul's powers. The matter was then referred to the Brazilian government, who instructed the consul to abstain from taking any further proceedings on behalf of the minor children, as by a recent Brazilian decree, the administration to the intestate property of aliens was vested in the local authorities, and not in the consul of the alien's country, when the widow was a Brazilian and the children born in Brazil.

This case rather concerns Brazilian than French law; but it is worthy of remark, as illustrative of the French doctrine, as to the nationality of the minor children of aliens born in France.

In August, 1856, the French chargé d'affaires in London recommended to the favorable consideration of Her Majesty's government a petition from the French residents in British Guiana, praying for exemption from the local militia.

"The French embassy was informed (October 10, 1856) that "to hold out to the French residents in British Guiana, in general terms, that they are specially favored, would, in the opinion of Her Majesty's government, place them in a false position, and would raise expectations that could not be fulfilled, inasmuch as they cannot be exempted from militia service, which is the particular favor that they solicit.

"As the French settlers appear to make this application from the fact that the Portnguese are exempted from militia service, I have the honor to acquaint your excellency that this exemption is owing to certain provisions of a treaty, which appear to Her Majesty's government to be so manifestly inexpedient and objectionable in prin- * ciple, that they have now under consideration the propriety of opening negotiations for an alteration of that treaty in this respect."

In December, 1857, the colonial office forwarded copies of a correspondence with the governor and lieutenant-governor of British Guiana on this subject, and asked whether any communication should be addressed to the French government, or whether the claim of the French residents to exemption should be directly negatived.

1Consul Rainals; June 9, 1864. Lord Cowley, No. 1,188; September 7, 1855. 3 Baron de Malaret; August 21, 1856. To Count de Persigny; October 10, 1856. The treaty referred to is the Treaty of Commerce and Navigation of July 3, 1842. Article I. They shall be exempt from forced loans or any other extraordinary contributions not general or not by law established, and from all military service by sea or by land." Similar provisions are inserted in most treaties of this description, and are of es sential service to protect British subjects from conscription. See treaties with Russia, Italy, &c., and the recent treaty with Colombia, February 16, 1866. Article XVI. "The subjects and citizens of each of the contracting parties in the dominions and possessions of the other shall be exempted from all compulsory military service whatever, whether in the army, navy, or national guard or militia." There is no such general treaty with France. Colonial office; December 23, 1857.

Lord Clarendon, in reply, stated that he considered that the note to the French embassador of the 10th of October, 1857, was "a sufficient announcement of the intentions of Her Majesty's government with regard to this question.”

In December, 1857, Lord Cowley requested to be informed whether a gentleman named Julien Colonna Walewski, born in London, of Polish parents, was to be consid ered3 and protected as a British subject in France.

Under the advice of the law officers, Lord Cowley was instructed that, under the circumstances stated, M. Walewski was entitled to be so considered.

The correspondence previously referred to ("Argentine Republic-Buenos Ayres,") arose about this time respecting the protection to be afforded to the children born of British and French parents in Buenos Ayres, in the course of which the French government requested to be informed of the state of the British law with regard to the children of aliens born within British territory.

5 In reply to the inquiries thus made by the French government, Lord Clarendon directed Lord Cowley to state to them, “With reference to the questions put to yon by Count Walewski, as reported in your dispatch No. 1625, I am not aware of any treaty between this country and a foreign state which would give to children born of British parents in those states the rights of British subjects; and in reply to his excellency's inquiry as to what is the law of England in such matters, I have to observe that the general law of England in the matter is that all children, of whatsoever parentage, born in the Queen's dominions, are British subjects by birth, and are in England entitled to the privileges and liable to the obligations of that status.

"The children of British subjects, although born abroad, if their fathers or their grandfathers by the father's side were natural-born subjects, are by certain British statutes to be deemed natural-born subjects themselves to all intents and purposes in England; but neither these statutes nor the general principles of English or international law, or of reciprocity or comity so far as great Britain is concerned, would justify her in maintaining that such persons are 'British subjects' within the true intent and meaning of a treaty with a foreign nation in which their case is not specially provided for, or in contending that they are, while residing in such foreign country, exempt from the obligations incident to their status as natural-born subjects or citizens of such foreign country, of their actual birth and residence. Great Britain may confer upon them any privileges as far as her own territories are concerned, but no such privileges can avail as against or in derogation of their antecedent natural and legal obligations to the country of their birth."

Earl of Malmesbury to the Earl of Cowley.

FOREIGN OFFICE, March 13, 1858.

6 MY LORD: Your excellency recently requested to be informed how the decisions could be reconciled which had been come to Her Majesty's government upon two cases of nationality which had been under their consideration.

"The first of the two cases was that of a gentleman named Julien Colonna Walewski, who had claimed from your excellency to be considered a British subject on the ground that his father (a Polish emigrant) had gone to England in 1824, where he had married an English lady, and had resided in England up to the time of his death in 1854, during which period Mr. J. C. Walewski had been born in London. In this case it was the opinion of Her Majesty's government that M. Walewski, having been born in London, was, under the circumstances, entitled to be considered a British subject in France. "The second case had been raised with regard to the law of this country on the question of the nationality of children of British subjects born in foreign countries, as bearing upon the general question at issue with regard to compulsory enlistment by the gov ernment of Buenos Ayres. The opinion given by Her Majesty's government upon this case was that all children, of whatever parentage, born in the Queen's dominions, are British subjects by birth, and are in England entitled to the privileges and liable to the obligations of that status.

"Your excellency pointed out with reference to these two decisions, that it appeared to you that according to the latter it is only in England that foreigners born in England enjoy the rights of British subjects; whereas, according to the former, M. Walewski was to be treated as a British subject in France.

"I have now to inform your excellency that Her Majesty's government, having carefully considered the difficulty suggested by you, do not see that there exists any contradiction between the two decisions.

"If M. Julien Colonna Walewski had been born in France, (although of British parents,) and had voluntarily returned to France, he would have been a British subject

1 To colonial office; January 11, 1858. Lord Cowley, No. 1691: December 19, 1-57. *To Lord Cowley, No. 1-13; December 31, 1857. 4 Law officers: December 26, 1857. To Lord Cowley, No. 1750, Decem ber 24, 1857. To Lord Cowley, No. 78; March 13, 1858.

in England, but he would not have been entitled to British privileges or protection in France as against the country of his actual birth and domicile.

"And this, as it appears to Her Majesty's government, is precisely the case of the children of British subjects who are born and resident in Buenos Ayres. They are British subjects in England, but this cannot prevent their being considered and treated as Buenos Ayreans in Buenos Ayres; but M. Waleski was born in England, and, as such, is a natural-born subject of Her Majesty, and the circumstance that his father was a Pole cannot disentitle him to British privileges in France.

"It is competent to any country to confer, by general or special legislation, the privileges of nationality upon those who are born out of its own territory, but it cannot confer such privileges upon such persons as against the country of their birth, when they voluntarily return to and reside therein. Those born in the territory of a nation are (as a genera principle) liable, when actually therein, to the obligations incident to their status by birth. Great Britain considers and treats such persons as natural-born subjects, and cannot therefore deny the right of other nations (as Buenos Ayres) to do the same.

"But Great Britain cannot permit the nationality of the children of foreign parents born within her territory to be questioned. The expression, 'in England, found by your excellency in the decision given by Her Majesty's government in the Buenos Ayres case, referred to the inquiry of Count Walewski, as reported by you, 'What is the law of England in such matters?'

"I am, &c.,

"MALMESBURY."

In reply to an inquiry addressed to the foreign office in July, 1859, Lord John Russell stated to M. Julien that, "independently of any disabling clause which they may contain, British letters of naturalization do not give the holders of them any right to British protection in the country of their birth."

A case occurred in 1861 in which a M. Casaubon claimed protection from the British embassy at Paris to procure his exemption from the conscription on the ground that he was born in the Mauritius.

It appeared that his father was a Frenchman, and the French government accordingly claimed him as a French subject. 3

Lord Cowley was instructed to request the French government to state the reasons upon which "M. Casaubon had been subjected to the conscription, notwithstanding his certificate of British nationality, and the fact of his having been born in the Queen's dominions, and having resided there until he was of age."

The result of Lord Cowley's application to the French government was not reported.

A question arose in February, 1861, as to the right of a naturalized British subject, Mr. Zwinger, a Swiss by birth, to be married at the British embassy.

Lord Cowley was instructed to allow the marriage in question to be solemnized at the British embassy, taking care that the bride was previously informed that Mr. Zwinger may be considered legally as a Swiss citizen, as well as a naturalized British subject; and that the validity of the marriage might be open to doubt in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere out of England, and recommending her to be previously married in the French civil form.7

GERMANY.-FRANKFORT.

Sir Alexander Malet having requested to be informed, in June, 1863, whether a naturalized British subject is entitled to claim, in the land of his birth, British protection against any penalties which he may have incurred by the act of withdrawing himself from his native land, Lord Russell replied, "That a foreigner who has become a naturalized British subject cannot claim British protection against the operation of the law of his native country, so as to exempt himself from any penalties which the law of his native country may inflict upon him when he returns to it."

19 In April, 1864, a Mr. Grimm applied to Sir A. Malet for protection as a British subject on the ground that he had received a "denization" act issued by a judge of the supreme court of New South Wales in 1856, though he had been domiciled in Germany since 1859.12

13 Mr. Grimm had been convicted of an assault on a railway guard in the grand duchy

To M. Julien, July 11, 1859. Lord Cowley, No. 426. Lord Cowley, No. 364; March 20, 1861. 4 To Lord Cowley, No. 347; March 20, 1861. Lord Cowley, No. 194; February 4, 1861. 6 Queen's Advo cate: February 27, 1861.7 To Lord Cowley, February 24, 1861. Sir A. Malet, No. 81; June 2, 1863. To Mr. Corbett, No. 2; June 19, 1863. 10 Sir A. Malet, No. 129; April 30, 1864. 11 Sir A. Malet, No. 136; May 13, 1864. 12 Sir A. Malet, No. 139; May 24, 1864. 13 Sir A. Malet, No. 140; May 28, 1864.

of Hesse, and he requested Sir A. Malet to get the sentence of imprisonment passed on him reversed.

Sir A. Malet was instructed that if the country of Mr. Grimm's birth was the same as the one whose court had tried and condemned him, Her Majesty's minister ought not to interfere on his behalf, on the ground of the alleged act of denization; but if Mr. Grimm had been tried in the court of a third country, i. e., not the country of his original allegiance, then Sir A. Malet should use his good offices in whatever manner might be expedient and discreet.

It turned out that Mr. Grimm was a Prussian by birth, and Sir A. Malet accordingly entered into an official communication with the authorities, and Mr. Grimm's sentence appears to have been eventually commuted for a fine on his petitioning the Grand Duke.

HANSE TOWNS.

James Terry having applied to Colonel Hodges for exemption from service in the civil guard, in 1851, Lord Palmerston furnished Colonel Hodges with the following instructions:

"It appears that James Terry, the person whose case you quote, was born in Hamburg, and must therefore be considered, while within the State of Hamburg, as a Hamburg subject; and it appears, moreover, that his father was admitted a citizen before the son attained his twelfth year, and that by the law of Hamburg the son would, on that account, also be deemed a Hamburg subject. Under those circumstances there can be no reason to question the liability of James Terry to serve in the civic guard, or in the federal contingent, precisely the same as any other native of Hamburg.

"With respect to the general liability of British subjects resident in Hamburg to perform either or both of these kinds of service, I have to authorize you to give way to the liability of British subjects to serve in the civic guard for the protection of the city in which they reside, if you should find it necessary to do so; but you should strenuously resist any pretension to require British-born subjects, whether admitted or not to the rights of citizenship, to serve in the Hamburg contingent, because that contingent is not a force raised and embodied for the maintenance of order within the city and state of Hamburg, nor even solely for the defense of the Hamburg state, but is a portion of the army of Germany, and is organized for the purposes of foreign war, beyond and out of the Hamburg territory, to be waged not merely for the Hamburg interests, but possibly for the interests of any one of the other states of Germany; and the making of such a war would not depend upon the will and decision of the government of Hamburg, but upon the will and decision of the central diet.

"It thus might happen not only that British subjects might be brought without, and even against their will, into conflict with the troops of states in amity or alliance with England, but that they might actually be compelled to take the field against the troops of their own country and sovereign."

A similar case occurred in 1863.

3 Mr. Charles James Bosdet claimed exemption from military service as a British subject.

He was the eldest son of a Mr. Bosdet, a British subject, who caused himself to be made a citizen of Hamburg in 1843, who had ever since resided there and was then residing there with all his family but his eldest son. Mr. C. J. Bosdet was born in Hamburg and resided there till he was twenty-two years of age.

Mr. C. J. Bosdet having quitted Hamburg, the senate published his name in the list of deserters, thereby subjecting him to certain penal consequences should he return within the Hamburg territory.

It was decided that the enforcement of the decree of the senate within their jurisdiction, should Mr. Bosdet place himself within it, would not constitute any ground for the official interference of Her Majesty's government, and instructions in this sense were accordingly furnished to Her Majesty's chargé d'affaires.

5 Another case occurred in 1866, in which Mr. C. Dodgshun, born in Hamburg, of a British father, who had become a burgher of that city, claimed exemption from the conscription as a British subject.

It was decided "that Her Majesty's government cannot gainsay the right of the Hamburg authorities to treat him, so far as their jurisdiction is concerned, as a citizen, or to sequestrate his property in Hamburg, though they can have no right to touch the property of his brother and sister."

In August, 1866, another of the Bosdet family appeared as a claimant to British pro

tection.

1 To Sir A. Malet, No. 36; May 9, 1864. 2 To Colonel Hodges; March 7, 1851. Mr. Ward No 4, September 4, 1863. 4 To Mr. Ward, No. 14; September 30, 1863. Mr. S. Williams; January 13, 1866.

In this instance, the applicant, A. Bosdet, had been born in Jersey, and was resident in Scotland.

1 Mr. Ward was instructed "that Alfred Bosdet seems to be the son of a native citizen of Hamburg, now a domiciled merchant in that town. The municipal laws of Hamburg treat the son of such a citizen as a subject, and place him, so far their jurisdiction extends, under the obligations of a citizen, one of which is to serve in the Hamburg military force. The fact that Alfred Bosdet was born in England confers on him, according to the law of this country, the character of an English subject; and there arises, or may arise, in these cases a conflict of jurisdiction; but as the law of England also considers the son of a native subject, wherever he is born, as an English citizen, the English government cannot fairly complain of the law of Hamburg, which in this respect is the same; nor can it interfere with the execution of that law within the town of Hamburg. You may accordingly represent to the Hamburg authorities that Alfred Bosdet has become an English subject, and ask, as a matter of comity, that his name may therefore be taken off the military list. Mr. Ward cannot be properly instructed to insist, as a matter of right, upon this being done."

SAXONY.

In 1865 Mr. Murray asked what was the nationality of a child of foreign parents born on board a British vessel, and of a child born without the British dominions, of foreigners naturalized as British subjects.

3 Lord Russell replied, "I am of opinion that a child of foreign parents born on board one of Her Majesty's ships of war would be a British subject, wherever the ship might be; and that a child born on board a British merchant or private unprivileged vessel on the high seas would also be entitled to be considered a British subject. It is more doubtful whether such a child born on board such a vessel in the port or waters of a foreign state would be entitled to be considered as a British subject.

“A child born without the British dominion of foreign parents, naturalized as British subjects, would be entitled to be considered as a British subject with reference to all other States but that to which his parents owed an original allegiance, unless indeed that State had, by its own law, allowed its subject to divest himself of his allegiance."

GREECE.

A question arose at Corfu in 1866, relative to the liability of British subjects domiciled as Ionian citizens in that island to be drawn for the conscriptions, and whether they could evade it by renouncing the Ionian naturalization acquired by themselves or their fathers during the British protectorate of the island.

Her Majesty's government thought it would be a reasonable and just concession on the part of the Greek government to allow British subjects, naturalized during the protectorate of Great Britain, to have the option now of renouncing their Ionian and resuming their British nationality, provided this option be exercised without delay, and put on formal record as soon as possible.

But inasmuch as no stipulation to this effect was made in the treaty by which Great Britain renounced the protectorate, they did not think that Her Majesty's government could properly demand, as a matter of right, that such an option should be conceded to them by the government of Greece.

As it has been stated in the house of representatives that Don Pacifico, the hero of the 1847-48 claims, was a naturalized British subject, it may be as well to mention here that he was a native British subject, having been born at Gibraltar. (State Papers, vol. xxxix, p. 356.)

GUATEMALA.

In 1859 the attention of the Guatemala government having been called to the arrangement which had been come to in Buenos Ayres for the exemption of the children of British residents from military service, Sir Charles Wyke entered into

To Mr. Ward; No. 6, Angust, 1866. 2 To Mr. Murray, No. 7; April 26, 1865. 3 To Mr. Murray. No, 7; April 26, 1865. 4 To Mr. Erskine, No. 31; November 15, 1866. Sir C. Wyke, No. 1; January 20, 1859,