Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
That in that latter event it was presumed that the provisions of the Imperial Statute would prevail over the common law of the Colony.
That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to observe that, as far as the national status of Mme. de Préaudet in France, and according to French law, was concerned, she appeared to be in a position to claim the benefit of French citizenship under the last clause of the first paragraph of Article 19 of the recent Nationality Law of the French Republic of the 26th June 1889, which provided as follows:-
"La femme Française qui épouse un étranger suit la condition de son mari à moins que son mariage ne lui confère pas la nationalité de son mari, auquel cas elle reste Française. Si son mariage est dissous par la mort du mari elle recouvre la
qualité de Française avec l'autorisation du Gouvernement, pourvu qu'elle réside en France, ou qu'elle y rentre, en déclarant qu'elle veut s'y fixer.'
That the point, however, upon which Mme. de Préaudet desired information from Her Majesty's Government (see Lord Lytton's No. 60, Treaty, of the 26th July 1890, and its inclosure) was whether, according to the law then in force in the Mauritius, she remained a British subject after her husband's death, or recovered her French nationality.
That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to request that we would take the papers trans- mitted with his letter into our consideration, and that we would favour your Lordship with our opinion as to--
1. Whether Article 19 of the "Code Napoléon," as now in force in the Mauritius, must be held to apply to this case, and, if so, whether the construction of that Article contended for by the Procureur-Général of that Colony should, so far as the law of the Mauritius governed the case, be held to be correct; or whether the alternative construction and Article of the Code which were suggested in Sir Thomas Sanderson's letter as being preferably applicable to the matter should not rather be adopted as governing it?
2. Whether, the Naturalization Act, 1870, (33 Viet. cap. 14), and more particularly section 10 thereof, was in force in the Mauritius or not?
3. Whether, assuming the answer to question 2 to be in the affirmative, and also that the provisions of the Imperial Naturalization Act governing the national status of Mme. de Préaudet conflicted with the provisions of the law of the Mauritius upon the same point, the former or the latter must be held to prevail?
That Sir Thomas Sanderson was to add that the questions submitted raised points which, apart from the necessities of the case new under consideration, were of practical and general importance to the Foreign Office.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lord- ship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. That, in our opinion, the question raised in this case does not depend upon the "Code Napoléon" as now in force in the Mauritius.
2. The Naturalization Act, 1870, being the law of England, is in force in the Mauritius so far as it determines national status. (See Donegani v. Donegani (1835), 3 Knapp 63, 85; in re Adam, 1 Moore, P.C., 460, 470.)
3. If there were a conflict between the provisions of the law of Mauritius and those of the Act of 1870 upon this subject, the provisions of the Imperial Act would prevail. There is, however, in our judgment, no such conflict.
The "Code Napoléon," as a law in force in the Mauritius, must be rend as if the word "Mauritienne were substituted for the word "Française," and, in construing that law, a French woman must be considered "une étrangère.”
Article 19 of the ** Code Civil" would, therefore, have no reference to the case of a French woman who has married a British subject.
Article 12 would apply to her case, and would have the same effect as section 10 (1) of the Imperial Act, viz., that the French widow would continue to enjoy the British nationality acquired by her marriage until she, by some act of her own, divested herself of it. (See Dalloz' “ Jurisprudence Générale,” vol. xviii. Art. 156, p. 71,)
We have, &c.
1585.
MY LORD,
No. 201. (MALTA.)
The LORD CHANCELLOR to COLONIAL OFFICE. HAVE the honour to re-enclose the papers which your Lordship was good enough
House of Lords, January 23, 1891. to submit to me with reference to the question of marriages in Malta.
I have carefully considered the questions which those various documents seem to raise, and I am of opinion that they can properly be referred to the Privy Council for consideration and advice.
to the Crown Advocate
report
I do not think it would be right to refer Dr. Tristram's rep of Malta for his report thereon. Nor do I think it would be desirable that the matter should be submitted to the Law Officers of the Crown, considering that that course had, in substance, been already adopted.
What I would suggest as the most convenient and desirable mode to obtain a judicial opinion on the subject would be that Dr. Tristram should be instructed to prepare the case for the consideration of the Judicial Committee, and I think it would be most convenient that Dr. Tristram himself should be instructed to argue the question before that tribunal in favour of the view for which he contends, while naturally the Crown Advocate of Malta should represent his view in opposition to that of Dr. Tristram.
By this course I think each view will be adequately represented, and the important and serious question affecting the rights of so many of Her Majesty's subjects in Malta may be judicially determined.
I have, &c.,
The Lord Knutsford, &c. &c. &c.
(Signed)
HALSBURY.
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC
(Signed)
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. EDWARD CLARKE.
65453. — 1.
25.-1, 91.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
། ། ། །།
Reference :-
BE REPRODUCED BUSTALL... COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
J