PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.
Reference :-
• 885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
2
That hitherto the practice had been to sue as Crown Agents for the Colonies, on behalf of the Colonial Government named, in order to avoid the necessity of giving security for costs, and also to prevent the individual Crown Agents' names appearing in actions in the Courts. *
That, in the event of some further authority being found desirable, enabling the Crown Agents for the Colonies to sue on behalf of the Crown Colonies, it was necessary to consider what steps should be taken, and whether such authority could be given by Letters Patent from the Crown, by Charter, or by means of an Act of Parliament.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request that we would favour you with our opinion whether
1. The Crown Agents for the Colonies could, by virtue of their office as Agents of the Governments of those Colonies, or Agents of the various Crown Colonies acting under the instructions of Her Majesty's Secretary of State for the Colonies, commence and defend actions in their official capacity, without a Power of Attorney, or other authority from the Government of the particular Colony on whose behalf the proceedings were brought and defended.
2. If, in our opinion, the Crown Agents for the Colonies were not so entitled, by virtue of their constitution, or by custom, what steps should be taken to confer upon then the necessary locus standi and authority for that purpose.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your
commands, have the honour to
Report
That in our opinion the "Crown Agents " cannot sue in that style. They are not a Corporation.
We think that it would be very convenient that they should be incorporated by Statute, and empowered to suc, and be sued, on behalf of the Colonies, any personal liability being excluded.
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.
&c.,
&c..
&c.
We have, &c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
17652.
SIR,
No. 183.
(SOUTH AFRICA.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
3rd August, 1898.
WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 15th ultimo, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us a letter and other documents received from Her Majesty's Agent at Pretoria with reference to certain questions relating to the nationality of the children of Mr. Strange, and of Mr. Pollak.
That it appeared that Mr. Strange was born in England and emigrated to the South African Republic in 1888, where, in 1889, he married a British subject. That his first child was born at Pretoria on April 2nd, 1891, and his second child on the 27th December, 1892, also at Pretoria. That Mr. Strange took the oath of allegiance to the South African Republic on September 23rd, 1891.
That Mr. Pollak, who was by origin a subject of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, was naturalized in this country as a British subject under the provisions of the Naturalization Act, 1870, on 16th August, 1889, and that his children were born at Johannesburg subsequently to the date of his naturalization in the United Kingdom. That Mr. Pollak had applied to have the births of those children registered by Her Majesty's Consul at Johannesburg.
That the circumstances in which Mr. Strange became naturalized under the pro- visions of the laws of the Republic in September, 1891, would be found on page 2 of his letter to the British Vice-Consul at Johannesburg. That it appeared, however, to be open to some possible question whether Mr. Strange on that occasion voluntarily becane naturalized in a Foreign State within the meaning of the Naturalization Act, 1870 (33 Victoria, chapter 14, section 6), so as thereby to have ceased, in contemplation of English law, to be a British subject.
That Mr. Strange was now anxious to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty in order that he might be able to allege that, under Article 16 (a) of the Law No. 3 of 1894 of the South African Republic, he had lost his burgher rights and therefore ceased to be a citizen of the Republic.
That it appeared to you to be doubtful whether Mr. Strange was legally entitled to take the oath of allegiance in this manner and for this purpose, having regard to the provisions of Sections 9 and 14 (7) of the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868.
That if Mr. Strange desired to obtain re-admission to British nationality he must, it would seem, fulfil the conditions and conform to the procedure prescribed by Sections 7 and 8 of the Naturalization Act, 1870, and that the former section seemed to imply that the taking of the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty was one of the later steps, if not the last step, which must be taken by a person secking to acquire British nationality.
That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to take the papers into consideration and advise you :-
(1) What is the position of the children of Mr. Strange? Are they or either of them, British subjects, or are they citizens of the South African Republic ?
(2.) What is the position of Mr. Pollak's children? Are they, or any of them, British subjects, or are they citizens of the South African Republic, and should their births be registered by Her Majesty's Vice-Consul at Johannesburg ?
""
(3.) Whether by taking the oath of allegiance to the South African Republic in 1891 Mr. Strange "voluntarily became naturalized in a Foreign State within the caning of the Naturalization Act, 1870, so as to be deemed, in contemplation of English law, to have ceased to be a British subject, and to have become an alien?
(4.) Whether it is legally permissible for Mr. Strange to take the oath of allegiance in the manner and for the purposes desired?
(5.) Whether a person seeking admission, or re-admission, to British nationality can take the oath of allegiance before receiving a Certificate of Naturalization, or (as the case may be) of re-admission to British nationality, from the Secretary of State ?
11636-25-4/02 Wt
D & S
*
2