that garrison, and if so, whether the wife of Mr. Peter Francia is entitled, in virtue of it, to the privileges of a natural-born subject within the fortress and territory. In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have perused the despatch and its enclosures, and duly considered the same, and have the honour to report that we understand that Mr. Peter Francia is a natural-born subject of the British Crown; and this being so, we are of opinion that his wife has become naturalized, and is entitled to all the rights and privileges of a natural-born subject. To the Right Hon. the Lord Stanley, &c. &c. &c. J. DODSON. W. W. FOLLETT. (12.) JOINT OPINION of the Queen's Advocate, SIR JOHN DODSON, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR JOHN JERVIS and SIR JOHN ROMILLY, that Aliens may be empowered by a Colonial Legislature to hold Offices of Trust. Doctors' Commons, July 3, 1850. MY LORD,—We were honoured by your Lordship's commands contained in Mr. Merivale's letter of the 4th ultimo, in which he stated that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the inclosed copy of an ordinance recently passed by the Legislature of the colony of Port Natal, "for imparting to aliens residing within the district of Natal some of the privileges of naturalization,” in order to obtain our opinion on a question which this ordinance appears to raise. By section 1 of this ordinance, it is provided that upon taking the oath, "and obtaining the certificate hereinafter prescribed, every alien now residing in, or who shall hereafter come to reside in, the district of Natal, with intent to settle therein, shall enjoy all the rights and capacities which a natural-born subject of Her Majesty can enjoy or transmit, except that such alien shall not be capable of becoming a member of the Executive or Legislative Councils of the said district." By the Act 12 & 13 Will. 3, c. 2, s. 3 (enforced by 1 Geo. 1, statute 2, c. 4, s. 2), aliens are disabled, even after naturalization, from enjoying any office or place of trust, civil or military, and from having any grant of land from the Crown. But by the Act 10 & 11 Vict. c. 83, for the naturalization of aliens, it is enacted (s. 2), "that all laws, statutes, and ordinances which shall hereafter be made and enacted by the legislatures of any of Her Majesty's colonies or possessions abroad, for imparting to any person or persons the privileges or any of the privileges of naturalization, to be by any such person or persons exercised and enjoyed within the limits of any such colonies and possessions respectively, shall within such limits have the force and authority of law, any law, statute, or usage to the contrary in anywise notwithstanding." Mr. Merivale then stated that the question, therefore, on which he was instructed to request our opinion was, whether an alien, naturalized in Natal according to the manner prescribed in this ordinance (which passed subsequently to 10 & 11 Vict. c. 83), would be able to enjoy an office or place of trust (except such as are specially excepted in the ordinance), and to take a grant of land from the Crown? Mr. Merivale concluded by saying he was directed to subjoin a memorandum which was drawn up in the Colonial Office, on the legal status of colonial aliens prior to the passing of 10 & 11 Vict. c. 83; and a circular to the governors of the colonies, which was transmitted after the passing that Act; and also a copy of an opinion given by the Queen's Advocate General, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, on the 25th May, 1840, on the subject of a Mauritius Naturalization Ordinance. In obedience to the commands of your Lordship, we have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to reportThat in our opinion an alien naturalized in Natal, according to the manner prescribed in this ordinance, would be able to enjoy an office or place of trust, except such as are specially excepted in the ordinance, and to take a grant of land from the Crown. The Right Hon. Earl Grey, &c. &c. &c. J. DODSON. JOHN JERVIS. JOHN ROMILLY. (13.) JOINT OPINION of the Queen's Advocate, SIR JOHN DODSON, and the Attorney and Solicitor General, SIR A. E. COCKBURN and SIR W. PAGE WOOD, that a "Liberated African" does not become, ipso facto, a British Subject. Doctors' Commons, October 21, 1851. MY LORD,-We are honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Elliot's letter of the 13th instant, stating that he was directed to transmit to us the accompanying extract of a despatch from the Governor of Sierra Leone; and to request that we would take the same into consideration, and report to your Lordship our joint opinion— First. Whether an African liberated from slavery by legal process in Her Majesty's Mixed Commission Courts becomes, ipso facto, a British subject in the full acceptation of that term? and, Secondly. Whether a liberated African, in the event of his committing any offence out of the jurisdiction of a colony, would be amenable to the same jurisdiction by which a bona fide British subject could be tried within the territories of native chiefs with whom treaties may have been concluded? In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have taken into consideration the extract of the despatch above referred to; and have the honour to report that, in our opinion, both questions should be answered in the negative. The Right Hon. Earl Grey, &c. &c. &c. J. DODSON. A. E. COCKBURN. (14.) JOINT OPINION of the same LAW OFFICERS, that such an African may be comprehended in Treaties within the meaning of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 94. Doctors' Commons, February 21, 1852. MY LORD,—We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, contained in Mr. Merivale's letter of the 4th instant, in which he stated that, with reference to our letter of the 21st of October last, on the subject of liberated Africans, he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us copy of a despatch received by your Lordship from the Governor of Sierra Leone, to whom that letter had been communicated; and he was directed to ask whether, in our opinion, although liberated Africans are not British subjects, yet, if treaties were entered into according to the recommendation of the annexed Order in Council of the 13th of July, 1850, with the constituted authorities of neighbouring territories to Sierra Leone, applying in terms to liberated Africans inhabiting the possessions of Her Majesty as well as to those who are strictly British subjects, it would not be competent for Her Majesty to authorize the punishment or trial at Sierra Leone of such liberated Africans under the provisions of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 94, and by virtue of such treaties? Mr. Merivale annexed, for reference, the Order in Council of the 3rd of September, 1844, passed, in virtue of that Act, to regulate Her Majesty's jurisdiction within territories adjacent to Cape Coast Castle. In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have considered the several papers transmitted to us; and have the honour to report that, although liberated Africans are not British subjects, yet, if treaties were entered into, as suggested in the question put to us, it would be competent for Her Majesty to authorize the trial at Sierra Leone of such liberated Africans under the provisions of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 4, and by virtue of such treaties. The Right Hon. Earl Grey, &c. &c. &c. J. DODSON. A. E. COCKBURN. W. P. WOOD. NOTES TO CHAPTER IX. The English doctrine undoubtedly is that nemo potest exuere patriam- Allegiance. the obligation of allegiance is for life. Sir Travers Twiss says (Law of Nations, i. 231), that this "finds no countenance in the Law of Nations, as it is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that law." In the United States the current of judicial authorities has followed the rule of the English law, and it has been there held that neither a native nor a naturalized citizen can throw off his allegiance without consent of the State. See an able note on this subject in Dana's 6th edit. of Wheaton, 142, note 49, where he quotes a letter from Mr. Cass to the United States Minister at Berlin (July 8, 1859), in which he says: "The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is a relic of barbarism which has been disappearing from Christendom during the last century." The rule of the Roman law is thus stated by Cicero, pro Balbo, 11: Jure enim nostro neque mutare civitatem quisquam invitus potest, NEQUE, SI VELIT, MUTARE NON POTEST, modo adsciscatur ab eâ civitate, cujus esse se civitatis velit. In an Opinion given by the United States Attorney General Cushing, in 1856 (Attorney Generals' Opinions, viii. 163), he said: “In truth, opinion in the United States has been at all times a little coloured on the subject by necessary opposition to the assumption of Great Britain. to uphold the doctrines of indefeasible allegiance, and in terms to forbid expatriation. Hence we have been prone to regard it hastily as a question between kings and their subjects. It is not so. The true question is of the relation between the political society and its members, upon whatever hypothesis of right, and in whatever form of organization, that society may be constituted. . . . The admissibility of change of allegiance in the United States without necessary express co-operation of the foreign Government, is implied by the Naturalization Acts, which require conditions of residence, of personal character, of publicity, and of actual abjuration of the foreign allegiance, as indispensable to the consummation of an act of expatriation. . . . Of course the citizen cannot apply such implied consent to any act of pretended emigration, which is itself a violation otherwise of the law, either public or municipal, as in the case of illegal military enterprises; nor by it can he escape the punishment of crime, nor appeal to it as a mask to cover desertion or treasonable aid of the public enemy." 66 And in another opinion given by the United States Attorney General Black, in 1859 (Attorney Generals' Opinions, ix. 360), he said that a native and a naturalized American are both of them American citizens, and their exclusive allegiance is due to the Government of the United States. One of them never did owe any fealty elsewhere, and the other at the time of his naturalization, solemnly and rightfully, in pursuance of public law and municipal regulation, threw off, abjured, and renounced for ever all allegiance to every foreign prince, potentate, state, and sovereignty whatever, and especially to that sovereign whose subject he had previously been. If this did not work a dissolution of every political tie which bound him to his native country, then our Naturalization Laws are a bitter mockery, and the oath we administer to foreigners is a delusion and a snare." Allegiance by the English law is correlative with protection: Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 5 a; and where the Sovereign can no longer de jure protect his subjects, their allegiance ceases. Upon this principle allegiance is changed by conquest, or by cession of territory under a treaty. In Fabrigas v. Mostyn, Cowp. 161, Lord Mansfield said: "The objection made in this case, of its not being stated on the record that the plaintiff was born since the Peace of Utrecht, by which Minorca was |