The Sun.
London, England, 1867-12-18 00:00:00

BP►ITISH SUBJECTS IN AmEinci.

Historicus—a well-known writer in the Tinies—*
has taken up the paragraph in the Presidents
speech urging " Congress to declare that the na-
turalisation of a foreigner, as a citizen of the United
States, absolves the recipient from allegiance to the
sovereign of his native country," as the text of a
letter. He exposes the absurdity of English law 00
a subject daily growing weighter in importance,.
The simple doctrine of the common law of England
is that " Every wan born within the dominions 0.1,
the Crown is born within the ligeance of the Crosca
and is a British subject, and that, whether the
parents are British subjects or aliens." A chliuf
born of foreign parents in England was English;
English parents abroad—a foreigner. In the reign
of Charles 11. a special statute naturalise) the chil-
dren of Englishmen who had fled during the Colr„
monwealth, and whose children were thus born it
foreign parts. By a statute of George
children of natural born British subjects born
abroad were made natural born British eau,'
jects. By a statute of George 111., it is enacted,
" That the children of fathers made British subjects
by the Act of George 11. (i.e., the grandchildren of
i
a natural-born British father) are hereby declare'
to be natural-born British subjects to all intents,
constructions, awl purposes whatsoever.' " rlllll°l
persons who but for this law would be to all inten.i;
anl purposes foreigners become British citizen
without choice. The character and distinctive
principle of British citizenship is that of in3eli"ie
and indefensible allegiance. Blackstone affirms 03
t
" It is a principle of universal law that the nature,:
born subject of our Prince cannot by an act of IP;
own, no, not by swearing allegiance to another, P°,,
off or discharge his natural allegiance to the foriner.A
Now the reverse is the case, and English law derive"
from feudal times when every man held mediated
a
from some lord, and ultimately of the king, affiraleo
a principle which was at variance with common
sense, and wholly inapplicable to present times. '`o
would manifestly be impossible now for England if
enforce such a doctrine, which would include b 3„
the citizens of the greatest of States as bearie,r,
allegiance to the British Crown. "When practical
tested long ago, in the case of 2Eneas Macdonal4;
the English Government shrank from carrying (ill',
execution the sentence enacted by the law. 143./
donald was a native of Great Britain, who had re.;
ceivel his education from his early infancy lie
France, and spent his riper years in a profitaib
employment in that kingdom, and had accept?'
commission in the service of the French litug;
having, while acting under that commission, been
r)
taken in arms (of course in a legitimate via d
against the King of England, he was indicted an
convicted of high treason. But he was afterwards
0
pardoned on condition of his leaving the kingd°
for ever. The logical consequence of this ill-orneac,
doctrine was the immediate cause of the unhal:P',.
war with America in 1812. In that war, aet
upon this theory of citizenship, the English Govern',
went threat2ned to punish as traitors its native, eat'
jects naturalised in the United States, and take.";la
arms. This menace was met by the arrest of pri'sl,
acti
n oun c -their inTeltlsn-ttrfe fq.1241g
Government shrank from carrying out their threat,
and these " natural-born British subjects" Were
afterwards included in the cartels of exchange'
The law of France avoids the preposterous cone ~
quences of ;,making citizenship dependent on ,_
mere local accident of birth. A stranger horn in
France may become a Frenchmen if he elects 0"
attaining his majority to do so, and testifies his 111 i
tention to make his home in France. Instead 0
enforcing an involuntary citizenship, the French
law decrees the forfeiture of the privileges of citiz,e,h,
ship where the deliberate intention is clear to
draw from the State. And in this the test is n3ado
deliberate domicile, not accidental birth. In Aul
rica the law is grounded on that of England. This Est
affirmed by Wheaton, who asserted that he was n.fe
aware that " a natural-born subject of one con0!."8
can throw off his primitive allegiance, so as to verse
to be responsible for criminal acts against his native
country." "When resident at Berlin he refused 'l,
protection of his Government to a Prussian natural
ised in America called to perform military duty.d
his native country. " Having returned," he °I.:
" to the country of your birth, your native dtlijo'lli
vile and national character revert (so long as Yore
remain in the Prussian dominions), and yogis as
bound in all respects to obey the laws exact', of
if you had never emigrated." In 1795 a ju'.gesed
the United States Supreme Court thus exPr,e'tive
himself :—"A statute of the United States relate
to expatriation is much wanted, especially as of
common law of England is by the constitution d,
some of the States expressly recognised and acioPr ja
Besides ascertaining by positive law the manner
which expatriation may be effected, it would obi' of
doubts and render the subject notorious 110 d
,eOO,
of apprehension, and furnish the rule of civil -tote
duct on a very interesting point." No such Etafijet
has ever been passed, and in America the CO the
between the Judicial and Executive doctrine Oleg,
subject remains the same. As //is/or/ens obSebrai
the English and American common law iS 1.01
inadequate to solve the question of the p(?il aed
status of that vast population of English of
of American domicile peopling the further sb°l.;_:ao
the Atlantic. The British law asserts the doct.rit'a,
of indissoluble allegiance ; the American Congrivg
tion demands on naturalisation, an oath abrl
foreign allegiance. Thus British enaigrants,oier
have settled in the States are placed in the i°1:000
able position of being held by law to an allege lees
which they may have disowned, and which in's' Pip'
a legal fiction and a political absurdity. 31anir
sons during the late war sought to escape cooc,Jo;rcra-
tion as British subjects ; but the English G,cles
ment never attempted to interpose its ewe heir
the case of those who had clearly exhibitecty.,ited
intention to adopt the nationality of the -„„a
States. That such a demand could be made' tbo
that according to English law a vast number va for
combatants on both sides might be indicteigoo'
offences, are proofs how greatly it needs reyould
Finally, Ilistoricus asserts that a revision Go-
simplify instead of embarrassing the action ofoo-
vernment in the unlawful proceedings of the Ji..,are
American Fenians ; for the more clearly the) et/9
recognised as American citizens, the more dll their
responsible is the American Government forisioo
conduct abroad. He advises a mixed certitsoleet
of English and American lawyers and eta' 0,001/
who could without difficulty arrive at a V.ect
basis which would place this paramount Sw4
a satisfactory footing.

Births.
RIPLEY—On the 13th inst. at Surbiton, the wife cf jOO
A. Ripley, Esq., of a son. aSSe%'
SAREL —or. the 16th inst., at llalcombe RPctory, ~„
the wife of Lieut.-Col. Sarel, 17th Lancers, of it
SHANKS—On the lath inst., at 2, Alton-terrace, Cf "
mouth, the wife of Ileinsb'y 11. Shanks, l'q"
daughter.
Marringes. 01111
'law= —LANGFOI:.I) —On tho 11th inst Tw-c1;" pf
William Henry, eldest surviving son. of if Gnr.;.'001)57
Hawley, of that parish, to Ayliffene Isabella
daughtee of the late A. Langford, of Jersey. ci'
SAUNDERS—GI—On the 26th Oct , Christ Pg.'
Colombo, Ceylon, Frederick Richard. Snug ,1,
Ceylon U.S., to Mary, second daughterbf the ll°
Charles (Elmo; Colonial Secretary.
Deaths. , 114 J°°6
MILLER—On the 17th inst., at Woodford IN e'''
Miller, Esq. 1°"01k
SCHOFIELD— On the 12th inst, at Tan-yr-Allt,
Eliza, wife of Andrew Schofield, Exp, W"dfic
ham, aged 67. 0 gelid
TAYLOR—On the 11th inst., at Radipole
Taylor, Esq., aged 71. s'
_
London : Printed and Published by WILMA,.
of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at Tag SuN 0,11°,000/31
Strand in the Precinct of the Sa troy, in the
1144111030L'm WedllAdaY, December 18, 1t67,