Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

communications with them with the view of securing a similar exemption for the children of British residents in Guatemala.

In a note dated the 17th of January, 1859, the Guatemala minister stated, "This government acknowledges that the children of British subjects born in this republic, and as such subject by our laws to fulfill the duty of Guatemalans, have also obligations that bind them by the origin of their parents to the country where said parents were born. It acknowledges, likewise, that the discharge of these duties in a new country, and where the government and laws are also new, and not sufficiently firm, must be grievous in cases of civil war, and on account of the military service might bring with it some insecurity that might extend itself to the fathers of families and to the affairs of foreigners settled in the country, and might give rise to complications, or at all events to discussions that ought to be avoided. * Therefore, taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case, the government judges it very expedient to obviate by a resolution and a friendly understanding, all the difficulties caused by this inequality of conditions, and to remove for any future occurrence all motives of discussion; and taking into consideration that no serious difficulty presents itself for the reasons already expressed in the making some concession as regards the military service in favor of the sons of British subjects born in the republic, and who as Guatemalans are liable to perform their duties the same as the natives, acceding to the wishes of Her Majesty, is willing to consider them exempt from said military service until they reach the age of 21 years, and to agree that in all cases when they may be required to perform this service they can find a substitute."

Sir Charles Wyke in forwarding a copy of this note to Lord Malmesbury remarked that this arrangement was more favorable than the one arrived at with Buenos Ayres, as it did not require that the substitutes should be foreigners.

12 Costa Rica, Honduras, Salvador, and Nicaragua, also acceded to this understanding.

ITALY.

3 The following extract from a dispatch addressed by Sir W. Temple to Mr. Vice-consul Barker in 1837, explains the views of the Neapolitan government in a case of disputed nationality which occurred at that date:

"I have represented to Prince Cassaro the case of Mr. John and Mr. Benedict Stuart, and he is decidedly of opinion, as well as myself, that they are British subjects, and therefore not liable by treaty to be called upon to serve in the sanitary cordon. Their father, Lieutenant Stuart, having been born in England, was a British subject, and his marrying a Messinese made no difference in the nationality of his sons, for, accord ing to law, the wife follows the condition of the husband. Unless, therefore, the sons in coming of age had declared their intention of being naturalized, and had gone through the formalities prescribed by the law for that purpose, they remain British subjects, Prince Cassaro informed me that this question had been already decided in the case of a French subject, and he has promised me that, if it is necessary, he will apply to the minister for the affairs of Sicily for an order to secure these gentlemen from further

molestation."

A question was raised by the Sardinian government in 1851 respecting the nationality of John Paul Baptiste Vertu, born at Halifax, Yorkshire, of Sardinian parents. The Turin government contended that he was a Sardinian subject.

5Lord Palmerston's instructions to Mr. Hudson were: "I have now to state to you that, as a general principle, children of alien friends, born in the British dominions, become de facto subjects of Great Britain, although not absolutely, and in all cases, to the entire cessation of all the bonds, privileges, and duties which might attach to them as children of the State to which their parents might belong, particularly when they themselves return to, and abide in, their parents' country, and claim to be, and act as, subjects thereof.

"The right to be considered as British subjects, if fully and completely acquired, and not abandoned or forfeited, may be lawfully extended to them in the foreign state of which their parents were subjects; and it is not necessary, in order to render his children British subjects, that an alien friend transferring his domicil to Great Britain should previously have obtained his legal liberation from his duties and obligations to the state to which he had originally belonged."

6 In 1843 M. Salteri requested to be informed whether his son, who was born and then resident in England, was liable to the conscription in Tuscany.

Lord Aberdeen replied that his son, having been born and being resident within the

1 Mr. Hall, No. 37; June 25, 1859. 2 Mr. Hall, No. 48: August 19, 1859. Sir W. Temple to Mr. Barker September 16, 1837. (Inclosure in Vice-consul Rickard's No. 14, March 1, 1865) 4 Sir R. Aber TORRÈS, No. 152; December 3, 1851. To Mr. Hudson, No. 9; March 23, 1852. To M. Salteri; July 3, 141

dominions of the British Crown, cannot be liable to the conscription law of Italy, or of any other foreign country.

In November, 1864, the Marquis d'Azeglio requested information as to the nationality of Mr. R. E. Sofio, who had claimed exemption from the conscription at Messina as a British subject, although his brother was counsel to the municipality, and as such undoubtedly an Italian.

After some inquiry, it proved that Mr. Sofio had been born at Massina, and the Marquis d'Azeglio was accordingly told that Her Majesty's government could not proteet him as a British subject.

3 Mr. Sofio, who was a merchant at New York, in the meanwhile returned to the United States, having been only a short time in Sicily on commercial business.

In Febuary, 1865, the Marquis d'Azeglio made a similar inquiry respecting MM. Carlo Hammet and Mariano Stuart, (son of the gentleman whose case has been previously referred to,) and Lord Russell then urged the Italian government to abide by the doctrine laid down by the Neopolitan government in 1837.5

"It seems unnecessary to enter into a detailed account of this correspondence, as the Sicilian law upon which this claim was founded, and which was then in force, has been superseded by the new Italian code. (See "Laws of Italy.")

In January, 1866, Mr. Elliot reported the case of Philip Smith, who had been drawn for the conscription at Bologna. General La Marmora refused to except him, on the ground that he came within the provisions of the Sardinian code, his father having resided for twenty years in Italy, and the profession of coachman which the father exercised not being considered "comme un commerce ou une industrie."

The papers were referred to the counsel to the Florence legation, who pointed out that under the new code Smith could declare himself a British subject on attaining his majority, and thus procure his discharge; but that in the meanwhile (he being twenty years of age) he must be considered as an Italian subject, and liable to military service. This opinion is worth notice, as the age for conscription is generally eighteen; and in countries where a law similar to that of Italy prevails, it follows that the son of a British subject may be called upon to serve in the army from eighteen to twenty-one, when he can become a British subject and discharge himself.

It would certainly seem fairer that the youth should have the option of choosing his nationality when he is called upon to perform the duties of a native. It is obviously an anomaly that a man should be considered old enough to be a soldier, but not old enough to decide whether he would be a citizen.

This anomaly is obviated by the French law.

In April, 1866, M. Rosario Messina claimed British protection in Sicily as a naturalized Maltese. The Italian authorities denied his British nationality, asserting that his naturalization applied only to the island of Malta.

He was informed that his naturalization could not protect him against the law of his native country; the exception of this rule being found in cases in which the country of the original allegiance allows her subjects to put off their allegiance and become the subjects of another country, which was not alleged to be the law of Italy. In May, 1867, Mr. Elliot requested instructions as to the liability of Messrs. Hall and Hoare, and other British subjects, to contribute to a forced, loan levied on mines, and other undertakings in which they were associated with Italians.

Mr. Elliot was instructed that under the fifteenth article of the treaty of commerce, British subjects could claim exemption from such loans being levied on dividends payable to them personally, but they could not claim exemption from loans assessed on the value of the mine or other concern in which they were collectively engaged with Italian subjects who were legally liable to it.

MEXICO.

Earl Russell to Mr Scarlett.

FOREIGN OFFICE, June 1, 1865. 9"SIR: I have received your dispatch No. 29, of the 23d of March, requesting to be furnished with instructions as to the nature and amount of protection which you should afford to naturalized British subjects in Mexico, and I have now to state to you, for your information and guidance, that the rule laid down in 10 Lord Palmerston's circular of January 8, 1851, is only applicable to persons holding certificates of naturalization

Marquis d'Azeglio; November 28, 1864. 2 To Marquis d'Azeglio; February 6, 1865. Mr. Rickards, No. 15; March 1, 1865. 4 Marquis d'Azeglio; February 16, 1865. To Count Maffei; February 26, 1865. Marquis d'Azeglio: April 4, 1865. Messrs. Walton and Bubb; April 28, 1866. To Sir A. Paget, No. 3: September 5, 1867. To Mr. Scarlett, No. 43. 10 Home Office, May 17, 1865.

granted after that date, and that persons holding such certificates are not to be held entitled to the same rights and capacities in Mexico as a natural-born British subject. "The protection to be accorded in virtue of Lord Clarendon's circular of May 1, 1854, applies merely to the right of sojourn and of locomotion, but not to protection generally in regard to business pursuits in which naturalized British subjects may be engaged. "I am, &c.,

(Signed)

"RUSSELL."

A question was raised in 1865 as to the liability of British subjects in Mexico to serve in the police and national guard.

1 Under the advice of the law officers, Mr. Scarlett was instructed that they could properly be called upon to serve in the police, or to pay a tax for exemption, but not in the national guard, which might be used for active military service.3

4 In May, 1865, Mr. Scarlett forwarded a copy of a decree recently published in Mexico, by which the illegitimate children born of foreigners and Mexican women, as well as those foreigners who may acquire landed property in Mexico, are to be considered as Mexican subjects."

He was instructed that "the decree respecting illegitimate children seemed to furnish no reason for remonstrance from foreign governments, except, perhaps, so far as it extended to the illegitimate children born of Mexican women in foreign States (‘dentro 6 fuera del territorio del Impero,') a matter, however, of little practical importance." "The decree as to foreigners acquiring landed property should be protested against in so far as it was made retrospective, and that time should be allowed to such aliens to determine whether they would retain their property, and to enable them to dispose of it without injury or loss accruing from this ex post facto law.

"With regard to its prospective operation, though it would be severe on foreigners, especially if the words 'propieded territoria' extend to shares in mines and leases of land and houses, yet it was within the competence of the Mexican government to pass such a law."

6 Mr. Benjamin Crowther, a British subject who had served in the army of the socalled Confederate States, having applied to Mr. Scarlett for protection, Lord Russell instructed Mr. Scarlett in November, 1865, that "a British subject who has neither been enrolled as a citizen nor naturalized in America, ought not, on the ground of his haying served on either side during the civil war, to be deprived in a third country like Mexico of all British protection."

7 M. Saviñon, a Mexican by birth, having claimed British protection as a British naturalized subject, Mr. Scarlett's conduct in refusing it to him in Mexico was approved November, 1865.8

MONTE VIDEO.

See dispatch from Mr. Canning to Mr. Vice-consul Dale, December 20, 1842, previously cited.

NETHERLANDS.

9 In 1961 a case arose in which the Dutch government claimed the military service of Daniel Swan, a British subject born in Scotland of British parents and subsequently domiciled in the Netherlands.

It appeared that the existing Dutch law was in favor of the claim of the Dutch government; but a clause was proposed to be added to a militia bill then before the States General which, if liberally construed, would suffice to provide for the exemption thereafter of British subjects similarly situated.

10 The clause introduced into the militia bill by the Second Chamber of the States General was as follows: "A foreigner shall not be considered an inhabitant if he be longs to a State where a Dutch subject is not liable to compulsory military service, or where the principle of reciprocity is received with respect to liability for service,”

Some doubt having been expressed whether, under this clause, British subjects were exempt, the Dutch Government addressed a note to Sir A. Buchanan on the 25th of April, 1861: “Il a été décidé qu'aussi longtemps que les sujets Néerlandais establis dans la Grande Bretagne, qui ne sont pas naturalisés sujets Britanniques, y seront effectivement exempts du service militaire, soit en vertu de la coûtume on des disposi tions administratives, soit en vertu d'actes législatifs spéciaux, les sujets de Sa Majesté

1 Law officers, May 22, 1865. 2 Law officers, June 20, 1865. To Mr. Scarlett. No. 50: June 3, 145 4Queen's Advocate; June 9, 1865. 5 To Mr. Scarlett, No. 51; June 26, 1863. To Mr. Scarlett, No. November 1, 1865. Queen's Advocate; November 7, 1865. 8 To Mr. Scarlett, No. 2; November 1stå Sir A. Buchanan, Nos. 19, 23, 31, 32, and 33. 10 To Sir A. Buchanan, No. 34; July 13, 1861. "Sir A Buchanan, No. 77; August 28, 1861.

Britannique jouiront, également dans le Royaume des Pays Bas à partir de la mise en vigueur de la dite nouvelle loi, du bénéfice de la disposition de l'Article 15, qui exempte, à titre de réciprocité, les étrangers établis dans le Royaume de l'obligation de satisfaire à la militaire."

A clause was at the same time introduced into the militia bill, exempting from the conscription the absent sons of residents who were not Netherlands' subjects, thereby preventing the recurrence of a case like that of Swan.

In the instructions addressed to Sir A. Buchanan, Lord John Russell observed: "There is no practical liability imposed on aliens in England to serve in the militia, inasmuch as the militia ballot is not in fact resorted to; even their theoretical liability thereto is a matter not free from legal doubt; and they are under no liability at all to compulsory military service in the army."z

NORWAY.

By the Norwegian military law of 1857 "foreigners who have acquired a fast domicilium in the country" are rendered liable to military duty.3

A case occurred in 1861 in which Mr. Walter Foreman claimed British protection against the conscription, and he was advised to try the question before the Supreme Court as provided by the law of 1857.

If a convention existed British subjects would be exempt by the express terms of the law; but in the absence of such a convention they could only appeal to the principles of equity, and ask for exemption on the ground that Norwegians were not subjected to any such military service in England.

PERSIA.

Lord Palmerston to Mr. Sheil.

"SEPTEMBER 4, 1850.

"The principles upon which, as stated in your dispatch No. 87, of the 22d of July, you are in the habit of acting, in regard to granting passports and affording protection to natives of India, appear to me to be correct. The only question would be whether children born in British India of parents subjects of the Shah, can properly be placed under British protection while resident in Persia.

"In Europe the international law would be against such an arrangement. Children born in England of parents of subjects of a foreign state would be entitled to be considered as British subjects everywhere but in the country to which their parents belong, always assuming that the law of that country considers children born to native subjects while out of the country to be as much native subjects as if they had been born in the country.

"But though that would be the international rule in Europe, yet, considering the different and peculiar habits and practices of Asia, it seems to me that, considering that all persons born in British India, of whatever parents, are entitled to be regarded as British subjects, so far as concerns any privileges and advantages which attach to that character within the British dominions, it would be fair and right to extend to such persons, even in Persia, the benefits of being placed under British protection; and especially if they had resided in British India for any time, so as to have been practically domiciled therein."4

Lord J. Russell to Mr. Alison.

"FOREIGN OFFICE, August 25, 1860. "SIR: I have had under my consideration Sir Henry Rawlinson's dispatches No. 50, of the 29th of March, and No. 57, of the 11th of April last, inclosing a register of persons enjoying, and claiming to enjoy, British protection in Persia, and requesting definite instructions for his guidance in regard to what constitutes the right of a person to be considered a British subject, and to claim British protection in Persia.

"It does not appear that the Persian government has actually raised any objections, or that any case has arisen urgently calling for a decision as to the nationality or right to protection of any individual or class of persons; but as Sir Henry Rawlinson appeared to apprehend that difficulties would arise, and desired to be instructed beforehand what course he was to adopt in each case, as and when it might occur, I have to

observe

“First, that I am ignorant as to what is the course adopted on the points in question · Sir A. Buchanan, No. 34; July 13, 1861. 2 To Sir A. Buchanan, No. 18; July 29, 1861. 3 Mr. Crowe, Nos. 48 and 49; November 2, 1861. Mr. Crowe, No. 2; March 15, 1862. 4 To Colonel Sheil, No. 82; September 4, 1850.

by the other European governments having diplomatic relations with Persia, more particularly France and Russia; and having regard to Articles IX, XI, and XII of the treaty of March 4, 1857, as well as to the necessity of not conceding in practice to Persia more than is conceded to her by these powers on the subject in question, it is impossible for me to furnish you with definite instructions on this head.

"Secondly, I have to point out to you the impracticability of following out strictly, in relation to Persia, or any other Mahometan power, the principles of international law prevailing between Christian powers, so far as regards nationality and the right to protection. This impracticability is abundantly apparent from Sir Henry Rawlin son's dispatch No. 57 of the 11th of April, in which, whilst insisting upon the propriety of conceding, as it were, a reciprocity in point of principle to Persia in the matter of national status, he nevertheless suggests, in particular instances, doubtless on strong grounds of policy, the propriety of entirely disregarding or departing from any such principle in actual practice, as, for instance, in the case of the Masulipatan Newal referred to at No. 10, Class VI, in the list inclosed in his before-mentioned dispatch.

"Thirdly, I have to state to you that no new rule or practice, as to the extending or limiting the application of the existing system as to British protection, ought to be adopted, unless it be made common to other powers, especially France and Russia: no such new rule or practice should be retrospective; and no person now enjoying British protection should be deprived thereof by the application or operation of any such new rule or practice.

"With respect, moreover, to the class of cases particularly adverted to by Sir Henry Rawlinson, namely, the children of Persian fathers born in the Queen's dominions and afterward returning to Persia, I have reason to believe that in Turkey such persons habitually enjoy British protection, unless, indeed, they act in such a manner as to forfeit the right thereto, and to show that they have ‘elected' the Turkish nationality of their fathers; and I have to state to you, that I see no reason to depart from the instructions laid down on this head by Viscount Palmerston in his dispatch No. 82, of the 14th of September, 1850, to Lieutenant-Colonel Sheil.

"Subject to the above remarks, and considering the question apart from all considerations of usage, policy, or expediency, but exclusively and strictly with reference to the principles of international law prevailing amongst Christian nations, I have to state to you that a child of a Persian father, born in the Queen's dominions and returning to Persia, will not, whilst in Persia, be entitled to British protection, if (as stated) the law of Persia considers him a Persian subject by reason of his Persian descent; and on this principle Synd Abdullah could not, whilst he remained in Persia, be claimed, or claim to be treated there, as a British subject. Although, therefore, this would be the correct rule of international law, yet, as it has not been hitherto acted on in Persia, I think it very inexpedient that it should now be made a rule of English procedure there, unless it is also made common to all other European nations, and especially France and Russia.

"You will be guided by what I have stated above, when called upon to interfere on behalf of persons having a claim to British protection.

"I am, &c.,

"J. RUSSELL."

A correspondence took place in 1862 respecting the right of the British consul-general at Bagdad to afford protection to the children of a person named Ali Agha, who was born in India, but was of Persian descent, the Persian government having asserted that the children ought to be placed under the protection of the Persian consul at Bagdad.

Mr. Alison was instructed that the British consul-general was authorized upon the principle of the law, and warranted by the usage applicable to the subject, to take under his protection the sons of Ali Agha while they continued resident at Bagdad.

In 1867, the British resident at Bushire raised a question as to the nationality of the grandson of a British Indian subject born in Persia.

Mr. Alison was instructed that such a person was a British subject by the British statute law, and as such entitled to the good offices of British authorities; but in the case where the father had been domiciled, and the son resident in Persia, it was not reasonable to claim the latter as a British subject, so as to withdraw him from the operation of the laws of his parent state.

PERU.

In 1851, Mr. Vice-Consul Nugent requested to be informed whether he was to register as British subjects the children of British residents born in Peru, and whether children so registered, born of a Peruvian mother, were exempt from conscription.3

Mr. Alison, No. 64. 2 Mr. Alison. No. 184; October 26, 1862. To Mr. Thomson, No. 4: December 31. 1862. 4 To Mr. Alison, No. 15; November 12, 1867. From Mr. Nugent: February 1, 1851. To Mr. Adams, No. 6; August 23, 1851.

« AnteriorContinuar »