CO885-(15-16) — Page 268

R

15725

LONDON:

PRINTED FOR HIS MAJESTY STATIONERY OFFICE, BY DARLING & SON. LTD., 34-40, BACON STREET, E.

1908,

SIR,

1900.

No. 184.

(TRANSVAAL.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Nationality of Mr. H. F. C. Stelly.]

Royal Courts of Justice,

April 28, 1903. WE were honoured with your commands, signified in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's Law Officers to Colonial Office, 17th May, letter of the 31st March last, stating that with reference to the report of our predeces- Law Officers to Colonial Office, 25th June, sors in office of the 17th of May, 1900, and to Law Officers to Colonial Office, 30th June, gin, he was directed by you to request our subsequent reports,* as noted in the mar-

Law Officers to Colonial Office, 30th Sep- consideration of certain questions respect- tember, 1902.

ing the nationality of Mr. H. F. C. Stelly who desired to be acknowledged as a British subject in consequence of the annexa- tion of the Transvaal.

1900.

1902.

That Mr. Stelly was, as appeared from his letter of the 26th February last, by birth a German subject, but lost his nationality of origin by absence from Germany for more than twenty years and failure to report himself to the German Consuls in South Africa where he was resident.

That the Transvaal was annexed to, and became part of, His Majesty's dominions on the 1st September, 1900, and that Mr. Stelly stated in his letter of the 22nd March that he left the Transvaal on the 27th September, 1900. That it, therefore, appeared that Mr. Stelly, who had resided in the Transvaal since 1887, and had lost his nationality of origin, was an "inhabitant of the conquered country" at the date of annexation. Whether he was a burgher of the Transvaal by naturalization did not appear from his letter.

That it would be observed that Mr. Stelly did not desire to become a British subject, but was anxious to obtain a recognition of his British nationality merely for the purpose of obtaining once more the German nationality which he had lost. That Mr. Bertram Cox was to request us to take the matter into our considera- tion, and to favour you with our report:-

who

1. Whether foreigners who were in the field on the 1st September, 1900, and

(A) had

(B) had not, lost their nationality of origin

were, or were not, now British subjects in consequence of the annexation of the Transvaal!

2. What answer should be returned to Mr. Stelly's application?

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your

commands, have the honour to

Report-

1. (A) and (B). That we do not think that such foreigners became by the annexation British subjects unless they had become naturalized under the laws of the Transvaal or Orange River Colony respectively.

2. Mr. Stelly should be informed that His Majesty's Government declines to accede to his request for recognition as a British subject.

The Right Honourable

Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

25 Wt 064 6/03 D&S $14525

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

* Nos. 36▲, 39A, 158 and 164.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:

‛།། ༄། ། ། ། ..................C.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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