CO885-(15-16) — Page 112

23907.

No. 85A.

(SOUTH AFRICA.).

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

חודיים}

C.O. 885

Reference—

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

GENTLEMEN,

FOREIGN OFFICE TO LAW OFFICERS.

Foreign Office, May 14, 1901.

I HAVE the honour, by direction of the Marquess of Lansdowne, to enclose, for Nationall-

Verby and your consideration, a despatch, dated 30th January of last year, from Sir Arthur of V. Hardinge, at that time Her late Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Zanzibar, children in in which certain questions were raised relative to the national status (a) of M. Vladimir the East Verby, a lay missionary in the service of the Church Missionary Society at Taveta, in Africa Pro- British East Africa, who is stated to be a Bulgarian by birth and to have been recently married to an English lady; also (b) of any children, born in the Protectorate, being the issue of such marriage.

The first question put by M. Verby, according to Sir A. Hardinge's despatch, was whether his residence in a territory which "though not nominally, is for all practical purposes a part of Her Majesty's dominions," could not be regarded as equivalent to residence in a British Colony. In connection with this inquiry reference is made to the case of a fugitive from justice in German East Africa who had sought an asylum in the adjoining British Protectorate. The facts of this case will be explained briefly at a later stage of this letter.

It seems probable, from the context, that M. Verby was under the impression that residence anywhere in "Iler Majesty's dominions" would qualify him for naturalization under the Act of 1870 (33 Vict., cup. 14). One of the conditions precedent, however, to naturalization under that Act is a residence of five years in the United Kingdom, which obviously could not be fulfilled by residence either in a British Protectorate or in a British Colony.

Whether residence in the East Africa Protectorate might or might not be considered, for the purpose of colonial naturalization, equivalent to residence in any Colony, is technically a question of the construction of the law of the particular Colony concerned. As a matter of fact, however, it may be safely assumed that no Colony has, by its municipal legislation, prescribed that residence in the East Africa Protectorate is equivalent to residence in the Colony for the purposes of complying with the conditions precedent to naturalization, the operation of which would, in no circumstances, extend beyond the limits of the Colony itself.

No machinery has as yet been established by means of which an alien can become naturalized in the British East Africa Protectorate, or, so far as Lord Landsdowne is

aware, in any other British Protectorate, with the exception of Southern Rhodesia, for which special provision was made by the Orders in Council of the 7th March and 19th May, 1899. It would seem, therefore, that M. Verby's residence in the Protectorate is, at present, of no avail for the purpose of his acquiring either British or British colonial naturalization, and Lord Lansdowne proposes, with your concurrence, to instruct His Majesty's Agent and Consul-General at Zanzibar to inform him to that effect.

The second question asked by M. Verby involves consideration of a more complex and far-reaching character. He inquires whether children born of his marriage in the British East Africa Protectorate would be British subjects, and, if not, what their nationality would be, assuming that he takes no steps to register them, or to procure their registration as Bulgarian or Ottoman subjects.

No provision is made in "The East Africa Order in Council, 1897," for compulsory registration, but, even were such the case, it is not apparent how the national status of What the nationality of the either M. Verby or his children could be affected thereby. children may be in contemplation of Ottoman or Bulgarian law is immaterial; the real issue to be determined is whether they can be said to be British subjects jure soli. The answer to this depends presumably upon the solution of two questions, viz :—

(a) Does His Majesty, by his Representatives, exercise, in fact, dominion nud Sovereignty in such portion of the territory of the British East Africa Protectorate as lies outside the mainland portion over which the Sultan of Zanzibar still retains his sovereign rights; and if so-

(b.) Can it be properly said that children born on such territory are, at common law, British subjects jure soli, by virtue of their birth in the King's dominious?

9555-15-7/1901

Wt 352 D & S

5

tectorate.