CO885-(13-15) — Page 325

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

1

CLIC.O.885

14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO |

2

But that although Colonial naturalization did not for other purposes operate beyond the limits of the particular Colony in which it had been conferred, it had nevertheless been the practice of Her Majesty's Government, inasmuch as persons thus naturalized were subjects of the Queen in one of Her Majesty's Colonies, to grant to them British protection in all foreign countries other than their country of origin, and to place them in that respect on the same footing as aliens naturalized in the United Kingdom, under the Naturalisation Act, 1870. A circular on this subject, which was addressed to Her Majesty's Consuls in 1882, was enclosed by Sir Edward Grey, and he was to add that the principles therein laid down had also been embodied in Section 8 of Chapter XVIII. of the General Consular Instructions, 1893, which had just been issued.

That Sir Edward Grey was further to request us to take the papers into our con- sideration and to favour your Lordship with our opinion as to whether Her Majesty's Government could properly press on the Netherlands Government the claim put forward by Mr. Carpenter on behalf of himself and others, and if so on what grounds · and to what extent it could reasonably be supported.

And in the event of our being of opinion that the claim itself should be pressed, but that the amount (25,0007.) actually claimed was excessive he was to request us if possible, either to indicate a round sum which, having regard to all the circumstances, might properly be demanded, or to indicate the data upon a consideration of which the sum to be claimed might properly be calculated.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to

Report-

That in this case there is considerable difference in the statement on one side and the other of material facts, but that on the whole we think that there is ground in the case as represented by the Netherlands India Government for a claim for reasonable compensation on the part of J. B. Carpenter.

The charge upon which Captain Carpenter was arrested was that of having appropriated a derelict prauw and its cargo at a distance not exceeding three miles from the Island of Boeroe, and to justify the arrest there ought to have been some reasonable ground for it. evidence of two witnesses, one of whom speaks to the finding of the prauw floating at The report of the Procureur Général refers only to the a short distance from the coast of Boeroe, but does not appear to have been asked for any explanation of what he meant by a short distance. The importance of this appears from the statement of the other witness Palmer mentioned in the same report, who, though not sworn, is represented as saying that the prauw was found floating near Boeroe close to a place called Kajoli. He then explains this by saying that he calculated the distance from shore at 16 to 20 English geographical miles, and there would seem to be little or no doubt that the other witness, if asked, would have fixed the distance at considerably more than three miles.

With all respect to the procedure of the Netherlands India Courts we think that such evidence was not sufficient to make out even such a case of reasonable suspicion as could be treated as a sufficient cause for the arrest of the complainant, and that on the ground of the entire want of reasonable evidence the claim for compensation for personal damage by J. B. Carpenter may be founded. We do not, however, think that

the alleged loss to the crew and owners of the "Costa Rica Packet" can properly be included in the claim. That loss is not so necessarily the result of the arrest of the master as to make it a fit subject for a claim.

We think also that the claim for personal damage put forward by J. B. Carpenter himself is greatly exaggerated.. It is difficult to estimate even approximately the amount which might be fairly demanded, but the claim should be based upon the actual personal loss inflicted upon the claimant, and we do not see how this could reasonably be placed at a higher sum than, say, twenty-five hundred pounds (2,5001.).

We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.

JOHN RIGBY.

The Right Hon. the Earl of Rosebery, K.G.

&c.

&c.

&c.

7062.

No. 36.

(MAURITIUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE. MY LORD,

Royal Courts of Justice, April 29, 1893. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 8th instant, enclosing papers relating to an application by Mrs. E. Pelicier that Edouard Guenot, her son by a previous marriage with a French citizen, who was born at Tamatave, Madagascar, in 1878, may be recognised as a British subject; and requesting us to favour your Lordship with our opinion whether Edouard Guenot is a British subject.

Mr. Wingfield in his letter also referred us to a report by the late Law Officers of the Crown to the Foreign Office, dated December 22, 1890.

In obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the papers into our consideration, and have the honour to

Report

That in our opinion Edouard Guenot is not a British subject; he was the son of a French father, and born out of Her Majesty's Dominions. By the common law there- fore he was not a British subject, and can claim British nationality only by virtue of some Statute.

The only one suggested as having any application is the Naturalization Act, 1870, but under that Act, in order that he might become naturalized, it was necessary that his mother during her widowhood and his infancy should herself be naturalized, and this never took place.

The fact that she remarried during his infancy, and thereby again became a British subject, does not satisfy the conditions of the Act of 1870, and is irrelevant.

The Most Hon. The Marquess of Ripon, K.G.,

&c. &c.

&c.

74771-16. 25-5,93.

We have, &c. (Signed) C. RUSSELL.

JOHN RIGBY.