Imagini ale paginilor
PDF
ePub

fensible in principle. By the law of all fathers abroad, which does not equally modern nations the condition of the child apply to the case of the children born of primarily depends on that of the father. foreign fathers in England ; and to lay But the doctrine of deriving nationality down an opposite rule in the two cases from the locality of birth makes it depend seems not only indefensible in principle, on the accidental situation of the mother; but to be a course which, in respect of and by this rule a child may become a policy, is very likely to be misunderstood subject of a country in which his father by foreign governments. If, whilst we not only never made his home, but which assert that the child born of an Englishhe never even entered.

man abroad is a British subject, we also The rule of determining nationality by claim that the child born of a foreigner locality of birth was of purely feudal in England is likewise a British subject, origin, and accordingly in the legislation it will be thought that acting for our of modern Europe since the French own advantage on inconsistent principles Revolution it has been discarded as the we are grasping at the combined chances governing principle amongst continental of a double event. nations. The Code Napoléon has adopted (2) It seems very desirable, as is another principle; viz. that the nation- stated in section VII. of the Report, to ality of the child should follow the na- lay down some rule in which all or most tionality of the father, in the absence States are likely to agree. Now the rule of any proof of an election on the part of of determining the nationality of the the child to adopt the nationality of the child primâ facie by that of the father country of his birth. This doctrine is adopted by all States as regards the seems sound in principle. In the absence children born of their own subjects of naturalization by the father in the abroad. As regards the children of country of the birth of the child, there is foreigners born in the realm, it is adopted no ostensible evidence of the desire of the by all States except England and Amefather to change his domicil or his coun. rica. It is obvious, therefore, that this try. The nationality of the child ought is the rule by the adoption of which will not therefore to be altered whilst that be most readily obtained that consent of of the father remains unchanged, except nations which on such a subject is of by some deliberate act of the child. That capital importance, It is stated in secthis principle is also convenient in its ope- tion VII. of the Report that “we have ration is proved by the fact that almost endeavoured to diminish the number of all continental States have in practice cases in which one who by British law is adopted the doctrine of the Code Napo- a British subject is regarded by foreign léon; and, as has been mentioned above, law as a foreign subject, and to obviate, it has been incorporated into the statute as far as possible, the difficulties and law of England and America in the case inconveniences arising from a double of their own subjects born abroad. That allegiance.” In that object I entirely the Commissioners do not dissent from concur; but it seems to me that it is this rule is shown by the fact that in not accomplished but rather defeated by section IV. (§ 2) as to persons born of laying down the rule that the child born British fathers out of the dominions of of a foreigner in England is prima facie the Crown, they recommend that the a British subject. In the view of every nationality of the child shall in the first State (including the United States, so far instance be determined by that of the as regards the children of born Americans father.

in England) such person is a subject of But in the same section (section IV., the State of his father's origin; and § 1), in the case of children of foreign therefore the proposed rule necessarily parents born within the realm, the Report creates all the difficulties and inconveni. proposes that the old rule of the locality ences of a double allegiance. Assume, on of birth should primâ facie prevail. the other hand, the rule, adopted by the

From this latter recommendation I Report in the case of the children born of dissent, and that for several reasons. British parents abroad, to be applied

(1) If it is desirable to recast the consistently to the case of the children doctrine of nationality by such extensive born of foreign parents in England, it will changes as those proposed in the Report, be seen that the desired object will be it seems expedient to found the whole completely accomplished. If the child system on some intelligible and self- B, of a foreigner A, is born in England, consistent principle. It would be difficult he would then be regarded by the English to suggest any reason for adopting the law as a foreigner; and so he would be rule by which the nationality of the regarded by all the world; and thus there father determines that of the child in the would be no conflict of allegiance. Supcase of the children born of British pose A, the father, to become naturalized in England, then B, the child, would be not only for himself, but (since he is a by English law a British subject, and natural-born British subject) for his chil. cease to be the subject of the country dren also, all the benefits of the character of his father's origin; and so he would be of a British subject, whilst it is abunregarded by all the world ; assuming the dantly clear that neither he nor his United States to adopt (as we have reason children could ever be called upon to to believe they would adopt) the principle perform any of its duties. This is the laid down in section I. of the Report, practical mischief of the present rule, and viz. tbat foreign naturalization extin- to re-enact it would be to give fresh guishes the native allegiance. The same authority to a principle the inconvenience thing would occur if B were himself of which is sufficiently apparent. Nothing naturalized. And thus, by the adoption can be more politically inexpedient than of a simple and consistent rule, we should that this country should be exposed to the lay the foundation of a general harinony claims of a class of persons who have no in the doctrine and practice of nations interest in its welfare, and who, neither which is not only of theoretical value, by origin or domicil, have any community but of great practical consequence. For with its affairs. nothing would more solidly conduce to On the other hand, in the case of the peace of the world than that the foreigners and their children who really same allegiance should be predicated of desire to incorporate themselves and tbeir the same person by all governments. interests in the common stock of this (3) I am by no means insensible of the

country, and to embark their fortunes practical conveniences which may result with ours, there seems neither hardship in some cases from the adoption of the nor inconvenience in requiring that they rule of the locality of birth, which are should evidence their intention to change set forth in section IV. of the Report, their nationality and adopt a new domicil but there appear to be grave disadvan- by some formal act which, whilst it would tages attendant on the rule which more establish their British nationality, would than counteract them. Such a rule, as at the same time terminate their foreign has been shown above, will have the effect allegiance. They would then no longer of imposing the quality of British subjects, be able to blow hot and cold, and adopt on a number of persons who neither seek in turn such nationality as happened for nor desire it. It is true that the Report the moment to suit their interests. If makes provision in the case of such the alien father is domiciled in England, persons for a machinery by which they and intends to cast in his lot and that may divest themselves of that character. of his family with this country, why Upon this it may be observed that a should he object to naturalize himself or foreigner in transitu may, through igno. his child ? But if he is unwilling by rance or carelessness, ounit to take mea. such an act to sever his connexion or that sures which shall have the intended effect. of his family with the country of his But it is not necessary to urge this point, origin, why should we embarrass our because in fact it would be as impossible relations with foreign States by conferring in the future, as it has proved in the past, our nationality on such a person to his to insist against the will of the individual advantage it may be, but certainly not on his British character thus imposed in any respect to our own? by the mere accident of birth. The real If the father and the child are really evil to this country is of an exactly domiciled in this country, the process of opposite character, viz. that by this rule naturalization would be simple and easy, persons are clothed with the character of

and having regard to the recoinmendation British subjects, and become entitled to in Section V. of the Report it will be all its benefits, who have no real con- seen that a person so naturalized will nexion with the community, and who enjoy all the advantages which belong ought to have no claims upon it. It is to a natural-born subject; if they are not probable that any foreigner acci. not so domiciled I venture to think the dentally resident in this country would child ought not to acquire the privilege of disclaim the citizenship for his child British nationality by the simple accideni which the law would confer, for the of birth. The great importance of insist. simple reason that the child would be ing on naturalization in such cases is, enabled to take all the benefits, but could that it is by this means alone that the in no case be really made to fulfil the double allegiance can be avoided. For obligations of a British subject. Under this purpose it is essential that the act this rule the child of a foreigner born which confers the new nationality should here might return to his own country in itself openly and unambiguously termiin his infancy, and he would thereafter nate the old allegiance. This, the rule possess, whenever he chose to claim them, which requires naturalization of a foreigner

[ocr errors]

born in England as a condition of British to none of the obligations of citizens, nationality would do; whilst the rule it would be desirable to discover for such conferring nationality by the mere fact of a class some more appropriate title than birth would give the new nationality that of “subjects.” What is no doubt without dissolving the old allegiance. intended is that such persons should have

I should therefore propose that in the the capacity of becoming at their election case of the children of foreigners born British subjects, and that till they have within the realm, the following rule should exercised the option to enjoy the benefits, be adopted :

they shall not be called upon to bear the “ Children born within the realm of burthens of that character, but that after alien fathers who have been themselves they have claimed the advantages they born abroad, shall be deemed aliens. But shall not be able to decline the obligations such children shall become British sub- of subjects. But surely if this be the jects (1) upon the naturalization of their view which it is intended to present, it fathers, or (2) upon their being them- should be distinctly asserted that whilst selves naturalized either by their fathers the person is not amenable to the law of during their minority or by themselves at England he is not yet a British subject, full age.”

and that as soon as he becomes a British This rule would make the child born in subject he is at once amenable to that this country, of an alien father also born law. I cannot therefore assent to a in this country, a British subject by birth, definition which speaks of a person as and in this respect it accords with the “regarded by British law as by birth a French law. Though apparently some. British subject” (section IV. § 2 a), what in conflict with the general princi- and of the same person, at the same time, ple, it is in fact in strict conformity with under certain conditions, as a person the principle which makes domicil the “who in the administration of British governing rule of nationality; for though criminal law should be treated as a subject the presumption of domicil is very small of the country in which he was born from the mere fact of the place of birth (section IV. § 2 b). The question of of a single individual in one generation, whether a particular individual who is it becomes very strong when the birth thus declared a British subject is or is both of the father and the child takes not amenable to our criminal law is made place in the same country. Such a con- to turn upon the point of whether he has dition of things may be safely taken as a or not "ever exercised or claimed any sufficient proof of permanent change of right or privilege as a British subject." domicil and of the election of a new I confess that in terms so general and nationality, which could not be inferred vague there seems to me to lurk a from a solitary and isolated instance. dangerous ambiguity very intractable in

There is another point affecting the the adıninistration of criminal law. latter part of section IV. of the Report What are these “rights and privileges;" on which I feel great difficulty. Though what is to be the extent of the “exercise" I concur in the principle laid down in or the nature of the “claim ” which by section IV. ($ 2 a) of the Report, by their absence or their presence are to which it is declared that the children sustain or to defeat the jurisdiction of born of British fathers abroad “should be the Crown over persons who are nominally regarded by British law as British sub- British subjects? This distinction seems jects,” I greatly doubt the expediency of to constitute the same person a British the declaration in the same section (s subject by birth in the view of the English 2 b), that “in the administration of civil law, and to leave him an alien in the British criminal law” such children are eye of the English criminal law. There under certain conditions not to be treated may be persons against whom it is as British subjects. The word “subject,” inexpedient that the rights of the Crown in my understanding of the term, involves should be actually enforced in particular of necessity subjection to the laws of the

But this is a very different thing State of which such person is a subject, from a formal declaration that there exist and above all subjection to its criminal persons legally called “ British subjects law. If it is necessary (though I think who are not justiciable in the courts of this is more than doubtful) to create a the Queen. class of persons who shall be capable of

W. VERNON HARCOURT. all the privileges whilst they are liable

[ocr errors]

cases.

[ocr errors]

$. d.

1.-AN ACCOUNT OF THE GROSS PUBLIC INCOME OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND IRELAND,
In the Year ended the 31st day of December, 1868, and of the actual Issues within the same period, exclusive of sums applied to the Redemption of Funded

or paying off Unfunded Debt, and of the Advances and Repayments for Local Works, &c.
INCOME.
£
EXPENDITURE.

£
S. d.

£ s. d. Customs

22,486,000 0 0 Interest and Management of the PerExcise 20,214,000 0 0 manent Debt

22,456,066 6 5 Stamps 9,174,000 0 0 Terminable Annuities

3,954,004 17 8
Taxes (Land and Assessed)
3,477,000.0 0 Interest of Exchequer Bonds

80,000 0 0
Property Tax
8,414,000 0 0 Interest of Exchequer Bills

112,046 0 0
Post Office

4,560,000 0 0 Interest on Bank Advances for Deficiency 5,703 5 0
Crown Lands (Net)

359,000 0 0 Interest on Bank Advances in Aid of Ways and Means

3,879 90

26,611,699 18 1 MISCELLANEOUS:

d.

CHARGES ON CONSOLIDATED FUND :-
Military and Naval extra Receipts

Civil List

406,267 3 0
and proceeds of Old Stores sold 974,753 17 6

Annuities and Pensions

283,399 3 9 Amount received from the Reve

Salaries and Allowances

140,940 15 10 nues of India on account of the

Diplomatic Salaries and Pensions

167,123 4 4 Effective and Non-effective Charges

Courts of Justice

669,811 16 6 of British Troops serving in that

Miscellaneous Charges

191,467 15 5
Country
1,053,000 0 0

1,859,009 18 10
Allowance out of Profits of Issue re-

SUPPLY SERVICES :ceived from the Bank of England,

Army

13,775,6798 8 per Act 24 Vict., c. 3 138,578 0 0

11,701,872 13 9 Other Miscellaneous Receipts 1,010,345 15 2

Abyssinian Expedition

5,000,000 0 0
3,176,677 12 8 Miscellaneous Civil Services

8,714,542 13 11
Salaries, Superannuations, &c., of Cus.
Total Income £71,860,677 12 8 toms and Inland Revenue

2,574,954 4 8 Excess of Total Expenditure over Income in the

Ditto ditto of Post Office

2,431,003 13 10
year ended 31st December, 1868

2,221,602 12 9
Packet Service

988,517 13 8

45,186,570 8 6

Navy

.

Total Ordinary Expenditure £73,657,280 5 Expenses of Fortifications provided for by Money raised per Acts 28 & 29 Vict. c. 61, and 31 Vict. c. 145

425,000 0 0

£74,082,280 5 6

Total Expenditure 274,082,280 5 5

[graphic]
[ocr errors]

8.

[ocr errors]

{

[ocr errors]

2.-AN ACCOUNT OF THE BALANCES OF THE PUBLIC MONEY Remaining in the Exchequer on the 31st day of December, 1867 ; the amount of Money raised by additions to the Funded or Unfunded Debt, and the amount

applied towards the Redemption of Funded or Paying off Unfunded Debt in the Year ended the 31st day of December, 1868; the total amount of Advances and

Repayments on account of Local Works, &c., in the same period; and the Balances in the Exchequer on the 31st day of December, 1868. Balances in the Exche- ( At the Bank of d. £ 8. d.

d. £ . d.
quer on the 31st De.
England *3,312,706 15 4

Issued to the Commissioners for the Re-
At the Bank of
cember, 1867.

duction of the National Debt, to be
Ireland 1,050,323 13 6

applied to the Redemption of the Pub-
Money raised in the Year ended 31st
4,363,030 8 10 lic Debt

228,956 17 0
December, 1868:-FUNDED DEBT :

Deduct-Amount applied in repayment
By the creation of Terminable Annuities,

of Bank Advances for Deficiency

228,956 17 0
per Acts 28 & 29 Vict. c. 61, and 30 &
31 Vict. c. 145 (to provide for the Ex-

Exchequer Bonds paid off, viz. :-
pense of constructing certain Fortifica-

Series M., dated 27th March, 1866

1,000,000 0 0
tions), to expire on the 5th April, 1885, as

Exchequer Bills paid off in Money

1,000 0 0
follows:
£ Annuity com-
Bank Advances in aid of Ways and Means repaid

1,000,000 0 0
16th Jan. 1868 7,751 mencing 100,000 0 0

Advances for Purchase of Bullion, and for Local Works, &c. 1,413,459 17 1
11 Oct. 1857
Advances for New Courts of Justice

120,000 0 0
12th June 7,958 Į Ditto 6 April, 1 100,000 0 0

Advances for Greenwich Hospital

122,284 3 7
12th Aug. 17,789 1868 225,000 0 0

Excess of Total Expenditure over Income, in the Year ended
UNFUNDED DEBT :-
425,000 0 0 31st December, 1868

2,221,602 12 9
Exchequer Bonds, as follows:-

At the Bank of

Balances in the Exche.
Series N., per Act 30 Vict. c. 31, dated

quer on the 31st De

England +2,606,084 12 5
27th March, 1868, and payable 27th

At the Bank of
March, 1870
1,000,000 0 0

cember, 1868

Ireland 1,086,684 91
Series P., per Act 31 & 32 Vict. c. 27,

3,692,769 1 6
dated 23rd September, 1868, and pay-
able 23rd September, 1869

. 1,000,000 0 0

2,000,000 0 0 Bank Advances in aid of Ways and Means, per Act 31 & 32

Vict. c. 85, s. 2, received in the quarter to 31st December,
1868, and repaid in the same quarter

1,000,000 0 0
Repayments on account of Advances for the Purchase of
Bullion, and for Local Works, &c.

1,575,801 2
Repayments on acct. of Advances for New Courts of Justice 85,000 0 0
Repayments on account of Advances for Greenwich Hospital 122,284 37
* No balance remaining of the Money raised for Fortifications. £9,571,115 14 11 No balance remaining of the Money raised for Fortifications. £9,571,115 14 11
Treasury Chambers, Whitehall, 14th January, 1869.

ACTON S. AYRTON.

« ÎnapoiContinuă »