judge or other judge of the colony wherein such persons respectively have so inhabited and resided, or shall so inhabit and reside, shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, His Majesty's natural-born subjects of this Kingdom, to all intents, constructions, and purposes, as if they and every of them had been or were born within this Kingdom."

And to-day, in like manner, America in its turn advances her wealth and strength by the unexampled increase of her people; and many, even hundreds of thousands, of "foreigners and strangers" are moved by the sweet attraction" of the lenity of her Government," "the purity of her religion," where religion is not the handmaiden of political institutions, the benefits of equal laws, the advantages of open trade, and the security of property, in a land where the people love the laws and institutions which they themselves have made, to come and settle in the clime which once was filled with colonies of Great Britain, France, and Spain, and now with independent States. The British Parliament in those days enacted that the foreigner "becomes, by virtue of this act, a natural born subject of this Kingdom;" and The United States, under nearly similar circumstances, efface the traces of his origin and adopt him as " a natural born" freeman of the American Republic.

Let not Great Britain dissent from what is but the reflection and the continuance of its own policy, kept up in its colonies even to the present day, and sanctioned again with respect to its colonies by an Act of Parliament passed even since the Undersigned has had the honour of being accredited to this Government.

Thus, then, by Roman law, by the law of France and of Germany, by the law of the civilized world, by the policy adopted by Great Britain itself in its colonies, foreigners become on naturalization as "natural born."

The United States cannot consent to a denial of this accepted doctrine of ancient and modern nations. Once naturalized, the persons adopted by America are no longer Bavarians, nor Prussians, nor Frenchmen, nor Englishmen; they are Americans. Wherever they are found, in whatever pursuit they are engaged, on land or on board ship, at home or abroad, everywhere they are Americans. This The United States have promised; this their faith and honour are pledged to make good.

But suppose for a moment the principle to be true, that an adopted American citizen is still a subject of his former sovereign. Last year, in the whirlwind of revolutions, language was made a guide to establish political nationality. Shall the millions in The United States of German descent constitute a Member of the new German Confederation.

Of the natives of these islands it has already been said that

perhaps a million are already in America, and another million, as it were, on the wing. Are these millions to remain subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, bound to obey the voice of this country? In the midst of the American Republic are they to seat themselves as the vassals of monarchy, owing fealty to an hereditary sovereign? Is England sending among The United States, not only people to be provided for by sharing in the opportunities of industry, but sending "subjects" who may get arms and still serve Her Majesty? Is England planting garrisons in all our towns, and in all our territories ? The good faith of the British Government forbids the supposition, that England is seeking either to make war on our Republican institutions, or to fill our country with men still bound to her service. And as a consequence, good faith requires that Great Britain should renounce all claim to allegiance from naturalized American citizens.

And how would the doctrine, if true, affect the emigrant himself? He that owes allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty cannot hold land in The United States. He that owes allegiance to Her Britannic Majesty cannot serve in the Government. Now, when men quit these islands because they cannot find in them bread, when in tears and sorrow they transfer their allegiance and homes, will the Sovereign of these realms follow them to the new world with a doctrine which would stifle their aspirations and destroy all their hopeful prospects? Shall English obligations go with them where those obligations only arrest their career of prosperity, and blight their happiness? If this were so, emigrants to the new world would be as much insulated in America as the Jews were in Europe in the middle ages. And if America consents not to exclude for ever the foreign emigrant from franchises, shall such perpetual disfranchisement be the act of the country from which he sprung? Humanity forbids it. Humanity so revolts at it, that it cannot even image to itself the dreadful consequences that would follow from the doctrine of perpetual allegiance. The doctrine that natives of the United Kingdom remain subjects of Her Majesty even after expatriation and naturalization in The United States, is altogether at all times, in all places, and at all hazards, inadmissible.

For centuries, the King of England wore the title of "King of France." Good sense at last renounced the title. Yet the Sovereign of England was as truly Sovereign over France as now Sovereign over adopted American citizens.

It is quite time that the two nations should come to an understanding on this subject. If the United Kingdom really wishes to retain as subjects all the natives of this realm, let the United Kingdom forbid the emigration of its sons. But if their emigra

tion is permitted, and even stimulated, the land which accepts the anxious responsibility of receiving them must take full power of regulating their political condition.

I ANNEX a copy of a paper just received from Lord Palmerston in reply to my note of 26th January last.

*

*

I take this occasion to say that, comparing the passage in No. 48 from the department, beginning at "but he " (the President)" still entertains" to the end of the despatch, with the first part of my note to Lord Palmerston of 26th January, I confess myself unable to perceive the difference between the opinion of the President as expressed on the 17th of February, regarding what should be done by me, and what I had actually done. I have in that note, as you will perceive, protested specifically against the two orders of the 2nd and 18th of August last, and on the very grounds on which the President wished it done. It is true, I called the paper, on one occasion, a remonstrance," and on another " a representation," but it was also none the less a protest, which is "a solemn declaration of opinion."

66

The British Government has never been left in doubt as to the opinion which the American Government entertained of the character of the orders of the 2nd and the 18th of August last.

Hon. J. M. Clayton.

I am, &c.

GEORGE BANCROFT.

(Inclosure.)-Lord Palmerston to Mr. Bancroft.

Foreign Office, August 16, 1849.

THE Undersigned, Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, has the honour to acknowledge the receipt of the note which Mr. Bancroft, Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of America at this Court, addressed to him on the 26th of January last, referring to the imprisonment in Ireland of some American citizens who were arrested in that country in August, 1848, under the Act 11 and 12 Vict., cap. 35,* and remonstrating against the consequences of the doctrine which Mr. Bancroft assumes to be maintained in this country in regard to the allegiance due to the Queen from Her Majesty's natural-born subjects.

In reply, the Undersigned begs to state, that he apprehends that the remonstrance contained in Mr. Bancroft's note has originated

* Vol. XLVII. Page 1244.

as

in a mistaken notion as to the doctrine held by Her Majesty's Government upon this matter; because Mr. Bancroft states that one consequence of the British doctrine of natural allegiance is, that Great Britain denies to The United States the right of regulating the condition of emigrants from Great Britain in such manner may most conduce to the well-being of the emigrants and the safety of the (American) commonwealth." Now, although by the law of England, natural allegiance is a tie which cannot be severed or altered by anything but the "united concurrence of the Legislature," and although it is true (as observed by Mr. Justice Story, an eminent American authority), that "every nation has hitherto assumed it as clear, that its laws extend to and bind natural-born subjects at all times and in all places," yet Her Majesty's Government do not dissent from the opinion of the same learned judge, that in speaking of the right of a State to bind its own native subjects everywhere, we speak only of its own claim and exercise of sovereignty over them, and not of its rights to compel or require obedience to such laws on the part of other nations ;" and Her Majesty's Government concur with Mr. Justice Story, in maintaining that "every nation has an exclusive right to regulate persons and things within its own territory according to its own sovereign will and polity."

The Undersigned considers the above exposition of public law to be perfectly correct, and it appears to him to meet the objections to the doctrine of Her Majesty's Government which have been raised in Mr. Bancroft's note.

With reference to those observations of Mr. Bancroft, from which it would appear that he assumes that Her Majesty's Government is disposed to doubt whether the poorer classes of emigrants who have come from Great Britain to The United States have a natural right to expatriate themselves, the Undersigned begs to observe that it has never been denied by the British Government that those persons leave this country by virtue of that right, which is asserted by Mr. Bancroft to be the foundation of all liberty, namely, "the right of every reasonable being to seek a new country;" and it is well known that by the laws of Great Britain no restraint can, except in very special cases, be placed upon the perfect liberty of every British subject to leave the realm, when and for whatever period of time he chooses. It does not appear, however, that the passage quoted by Mr. Bancroft from Cicero sanctions expatriation, in the sense of a voluntary abjuraration of natural allegiance, without the assent of the Sovereign Power: nor does an emigrant's departure from Great Britain debar him from returning thereto, at any subsequent time, as a natural* Ne quis invitus civitate mutetur: neve it civitate maneat invitus, &c.

born subject. So long as the emigrant remains in The United States, or in any other country, he is amenable to the laws of the country in which he resides; and it cannot therefore be said, as suggested in Mr. Bancroft's note, that the British Crown, by permitting its subjects to emigrate to The United States, is sending among The United States not only people to be provided for, by sharing in the opportunities for industry, but "subjects" who may get arms and still serve Her Majesty, or that England is planting garrisons in all the territories of the Union.

The Undersigned has also to observe that Mr. Bancroft has referred generally to the orders issued in Ireland last year for the arrest of suspected persons, and has alluded to the distinction drawn by Her Majesty's Government between native and naturalized American citizens; and, although Mr. Bancroft's argument does not bear specifically upon that point, the Undersigned begs leave to repeat what he has stated in his previous correspondence with Mr. Bancroft respecting this matter, namely, that natural-born subjects of Great Britain, who may have become naturalized in a foreign country, but who return to the United Kingdom, are as amenable as any other of Her Majesty's subjects to any laws which may be in force, either of a permanent or of a temporary nature; and the maxim, "ignorantia legis non excusat," must apply to them as well as to those who may be permanently resident within the United Kingdom.

The Undersigned begs, in conclusion, further to remark, that the statute 13 George II, cap. 7, to which Mr. Bancroft has adverted, has no bearing upon the status of a native of Great Britain naturalized in The United States. That statute applies only to persons not being subjects of Great Britain, who settled in America before the declaration of American independence. And it never has been contended by Great Britain that that statute would affect in the slightest degree the "status" of the foreign settler as a subject of the country of his origin, if he should think proper to return to such country. The Undersigned, &c.

G. Bancroft, Esq.

(Extract.)

PALMERSTON.

No. 5.-Mr. Bromberg to Mr. Clayton.

Hamburgh, June 25, 1850. I HAD the honour to address you on the 23rd of last month. I now take the liberty of communicating to you a case in reference to a citizen of The United States, which I deem it my duty to lay before you, although no final decision has been made by the authorities here in reference thereto.

An individual named Theodore C. Schuster, born here in 1826, left when 14 years of age; he had been duly naturalized in The