succession of property in this country or in other countries, and other points of an analogous nature, which would require a good deal of careful and minute examination before they could be satisfactorily dealt with. It is quite true that a treaty has been concluded between Prussia and the United States which deals with this question. I have seen, confidentially, a copy of that treaty, and it contains absolutely no provision for meeting those difficulties I have adverted to, and which I do not think we can ignore altogether in legislating. If it were a question of extradition only the matter would be simple; but when it is a question of what is to be done with those who emigrate to another country and desire to assume there the rights of citizenship, more complicated questions arise; for any alteration of the laws which affect British subjects affects all the inhabitants of the British colonies. Many of those colonies have independent legislatures, and we must consider them in making any alteration in our municipal law. I am in communication with the government of the United States on the subject, and though not willing to give any absolute pledge to the house, I think it likely before anything can be concluded that it will be desirable or necessary to have an inquiry by competent legal authorities. I do not think that in a matter of this kind we ought to act with too much haste. As long as there is an understanding as to the general principles on which we desire to act, questions of detail may be left for further consideration; and as to the mode of effecting the desired object, I trust the house will leave that point for the consideration of the government. [Hear, hear.] Sir R. Palmer did not rise to disturb the general concord of opinion which appeared to prevail in this debate. He quite agreed with what had fallen from the noble lord that we should review the law of the country, to see what reasonable and wise arrangement could be made, not to prevent misunderstanding, but to facilitate that interchange between country and country which was so much wanted in present times. But there was one question of principle to be decided, as to which it was desirable that the misunderstanding which did prevail should be to some extent dissipated. The principle always applied in construing general words in legislation of a particular nature, was that they were to be understood as applying solely to those persons and things which were properly and de jure the objects of that legislation. Thus, Great Britain was not supposed by these acts to be imposing burdens upon the subjects of China or of other countries. This country might confer privileges upon the subjects of those countries, but she could not impose burdens upon them without their consent. He should have thought it impossible to read the two acts of the 4th of George II and the 13th of George III together without seeing that the legislature as good as declared that all they intended by those acts was to confer benefits, and not to impose burdens upon the foreignborn children and grandchildren of natural-born British subjects. Had the extravagant and absurd construction which some persons sought to put upon the words of the first act been correct, and all foreign-born children of British-born subjects been subject to the same burdens and privileges as natural-born subjects, it would have been unnecessary to pass the second act, as it would naturally have followed from the provisions of the first act that the foreign-born grandchildren of the British-born subjects would have been equally subject to those burdens and privileges with their foreign-born fathers. The language of the second act, however, showed clearly that such a construction of the first act was wrong, as it was merely passed to continue those privileges to the foreign-born grandchildren which were extended by the first act to the foreign-born children of British-born subjects, there being no intention to fasten upon such persons any bardens whatsoever. That was the first branch of this question, and he was glad of having had an opportunity of stating his distinct and deliberate opinion upon it. The next point to which he wished to direct the attention of the house was also one of principle. Many persons, when speaking or writing upon this question, appear to forget that as long as a British subject, whether natural-born or not, was resident in a foreign country, he was to all intents and purposes a subject of that country and subject to its laws. Such a foreign government had a right to say to the British resident, "We have nothing to do with your former allegiance. Whatever our laws require from you, that we have a right to exact from you during your residence here." And except in cases of mere travelers the foreign government had no right to say, "We will pass a law which will extend an exceptional protection to you during your residence in a foreign country, to whose laws you shall not be subject." We had no right to say that Englishmen should be entitled to hold an exceptional position in the United States because they owed us allegiance. The United States might well reply to such a proposition, that while British subjects were in America they must be subject to the laws of that country, and that when they had taken the oath of naturalization the American government had a right to treat them upon the same footing as if they were natural-born American subjects. This construction of the law, he submitted, was quite consistent with the right of this country to impose upon such foreign residents the obligations of their allegiance when they returned here. Whether we went too far in making certain acts committed abroad cognizable by the laws of this country was a question for discussion, but it was not one which involved any fundamental principle that ought to lead to any difficulty. Speaking with due deference to the opinions of those who differed from him upon the matter, his study of the laws of foreign nations had led him to believe that there was not such a great difference between those laws and that of England upon the question of expatriation. It was true that the laws of some foreign countries declared that the quality of citizenship should be taken away from those who did certain acts, but this he understood to mean that by doing certain acts such persons should forfeit, not the burdens, but the privileges of citizenship. For instance, should a person thus deprived of his citizenship bear arms against his original country, he would be called to account for his conduct in the event of his return, and the excuse that he had forfeited his citizenship would not protect him from the penalties attached to his offense. He did not believe that the laws of any nation affirmed that a native of a country was at liberty, at his own will and pleasure, to divest himself of the obligations of his allegiance to act as an enemy of his sovereign, and then to return home and excuse himself on the ground that he had changed his nationality. He agreed that our law went rather too far in treating British-born children of foreign parents, who might be merely passing through this country, as British-born subjects, and he thought some alteration should be made in our legislation upon that point in the case of bona fide travelers. [Hear.] It might be quite possible to introduce some alterations in our laws respecting persons who emigrate, and who intend to reside abroad permanently; but such a change should be accompanied by provisions which would render such persons subject to the burdens of their allegiance in the event of their returning to live in this country. [Hear.] The attorney general said that the observations which had just fallen from the honorable and learned member for Richmond showed conclusively the justice of the remark made by the noble lord the secretary for foreign affairs, that this subject was not so perfectly clear as it appeared to be at first sight. The noble lord said that he viewed with no unwillingness to gratify it the desire on the part of the United States that some new arrangement should be come to with regard to persons who had naturalized themselves in that country. It was doubtless very pleasing and very easy to say that, but it was difficult to legislate in such a direction. On the one hand, we treated the subject of this country resident abroad as liable to the burdens of his original allegi ance even during a temporary return to this country; while, on the other, the United States said that the British subject naturalized in that country should become a citizen of America to all intents and purposes, and should cease to hold allegiance to his native country. That was not the case here, because the statute 7th and 8th of Victoria enacted that when any person became naturalized in this country he should not be asked to abandon his native allegiance, but merely to give a temporary allegiance to this country during his residence here; and it proceeded to declare that if he was absent from this country without permission for more than six months he should lose his naturalization, while at the same time our laws declared that a natural-born subject could not cast off his allegiance by any means. It was, however, now proposed that we should pass a law by which the British-born subject naturalized in America should become to all intents and purposes an American citizen. He repeated that it was very easy to make that proposal, but before such a law could be passed it would be necessary to look carefully through the statute-book to see what consequences might flow from such legislation affecting the interests of real property in this country, and the rights of those persons and their children who went to America. Another most material question to consider was the subject of repatriation. The honorable member for Bradford had said that by a Prussian treaty it was provided that a Prussian subject who had been naturalized in America, and who then returned to Prussia or the German confederation without intending to return to America, would be deemed to have renounced his right to American citizenship. (Mr. Forster, "After residence for two years.") He did not, however, understand what were to be the rights of a man who had so returned to the country of his birth, or what was the effect of his temporary expatriation. Mr. FORSTER. Upon his return he is treated as an American citizen until the expiration of the two years. The attorney general understood the honorable gentleman to say that after that time he was no longer to be regarded as an American citizen or to be treated as such. But this was one of those cases in which there was a great deal of difficulty in entering into an arrangement. He could not help thinking that before any treaty or arrangement was made upon this subject, however willing we might be to enter into such an arrangement, the rights of our countrymen who went to America and were naturalized ought to be fully considered, and the effect that any proposals would have upon some of our laws-the, laws of inheritance, for instance. He did not wish at the present moment to enlarge upon that subject. It should be remembered that our municipal law had been to a great extent copied in the United States, and that a child born in this country of a citizen of the United States was deemed to be a citizen of the United States. He was not going to discuss the construction which the honorable member had put upon that statute, but it was quite clear that before this matter was determined by any treaty, or any arrangement was entered into, great care should be taken to see how far the law of this country would be affected, and how far the rights of British citizens would be involved by interference with the statute law. [Hear, hear.] The subject then dropped. No. 2144.] Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, SIR: Your dispatch of the 7th of March, No. 1549, has been received, together with a copy of the debate which took place in the House of Commons on the motion of Mr. Shaw Lefevre relative to the questions between the United States and Great Britain which arose out of our recent civil war. It is pleasant to recognize the meliorated tone of parlimentary and public opinion in Great Britain on these grave subjects. We are ourselves not unmindful of the interests involved. I have informally suggested to Mr. Thornton a course which I think would enable us to obtain an adjustment of those questions equally satisfactory and honorable to both countries. He is in telegraphic communication with her Majesty's government in the line of my suggestions. This dispatch will reach you too late to enable you to render us desired assistance. I will simply state, therefore, for your own information, the nature of the suggestions which, with the consent of the President, I have made to Mr. Thornton : First. That we settle the naturalization question by a treaty substan tially similar to the North German treaty. Secondly. That we provide for adjusting the San Juan question by a liberal reference of it to the republic of Switzerland. Third. The solemnization of the naturalization treaty to be followed by a sparing and prudent exercise of executive clemency in two or three cases in the spirit of the new treaty. When all these things shall have been done, the existing irritation will be so far relieved that I think it beyond doubt that, we can provide for adjusting the Alabama and other claims in a manner practically unexceptionable in either country. I am, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1558.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception from the department of dispatch No. 2141 of the 7th of March. Although it is not presumed that any action on my part on the subject matter of that dispatch was contemplated, I shall endeavor to seize an occasion to converse with Lord Stanley upon it. Possibly this may contribute to accelerate action on the other side. I have reason to believe that the intention is entertained by the authorities here to release, without further trial, Colonel Nagle and the six other persons remaining in prison, who were connected with the expedition of the Jacmel. Stephen J. Meany has likewise been discharged from the remainder of the penalty inflicted upon him by the sentence of the court which tried him, on condition of his leaving the kingdom. Under an impression that the proposal to appropriate $50,000 to defray the expenses of perBons in captivity here, which was adopted by the House of Representa tives, had become a law, Mr. Meany called upon me to advance him two hundred dollars for the purpose of defraying his charges. The same impression prevails among the prisoners elsewhere. I was obliged in reply to apprise him that no information of the passage of such an appropriation had yet been received, and that no funds existed here from which to supply such a demand. It may be added that Mr. Meany has never yet furnished to this legation the necessary evidence to establish the fact of his naturalization. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams. [Telegram per cable.] DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, March 25, 1868. Inquire of Stanley and urge what Thornton recommends about natu ralization treaty. Reply by telegraph. WILLIAM H. SEWARD. CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., &c., &c., &c. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. [Telegram per cable.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, London, March 26, 1868. Agree to empower for negotiation, but want time to mature qualifica tion. No. 1562.] Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: I have to acknowledge the reception of two telegrams of the 25th instant, relating to a proposal to negotiate with this government on the question of allegiance and expatriation. I was enabled to reply to the earlier one promptly, by reason of an accidental meeting with Lord Stanley the evening before, in the course of which he explained to me his views of that proposition. He said that he was ready to agree to make the Prussian project the basis of a negotiation; but the adoption of it as it stands was thought by the law officers of the Crown to involve such extensive possible effects upon the laws of inheritance and succession in this kingdom, as well as collateral questions of property, that it was not safe to proceed without full examination of the statutes, and a report. He thought that some qualifications might be necessary to be introduced to guard against confusion. It was upon this conversation that I rested my telegra to you in reply. I have, however, asked for a special audience of his lordship next week, in order to press the subject upon him more earnestly. I have the honor to be, sir, your obedient servant, Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS. Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. Mr. Adams to Mr. Seward. No. 1565.] LEGATION OF THE UNITED STATES, SIR: In accordance with the intention expressed in my dispatch No. 1562, of the 25th of March, I yesterday succeeded in obtaining an interview with Lord Stanley on the subject of the proposal to negotiate an expatriation. But his lordship did little more than confirm my report of his unofficial conversation the other day as it was given to you in that dispatch. The law officers of the Crown have been changed often since the accession of this ministry; so that these are yet new to their duties, and they have had much occupation in other subjects, so that I scarcely anticipate any very rapid response in a case like this, which must be admitted to be full of difficulties and embarrassments. Indeed Lord Stanley intimated that as the existing commission appointed to consider and report upon the state of international law was now ready to report and be discharged, it was not unlikely that some of the persons constituting it might be selected to form a new commission to report on this subject, also. At the same time that Lord Stanley gave me this information he expressed his own disposition to co-operate in any plan to bring these questions to a settlement as soon as possible. Meanwhile the state of things in Ireland is becoming so much more settled that the few prisoners will probably be liberated without a trial. Lord Stanley told me that Colonel Nagle would be brought to trial at Dublin in the course of next month. I shall not be surprised if even that attempt should be abandoned, in case no further disturbances take place. The debate now going on in the House of Commons on the disendow |