same sovereign, the subjects of the King of Hanover ceased to be British subjects.1

Of the inconvenient results which sometimes followed from the doctrine that allegiance cannot be renounced it is at present unnecessary to speak. The Naturalisation Act, 1870, completely altered the law in this respect. It provided (s. 6) that every British subject in a foreign State, who not being under any disability voluntarily becomes naturalised there, ceases to be a British subject; s. 8 (1) that a married woman shall be deemed to be a subject of the State of which her husband is, for the time being, a subject; and s. 8 (2) that every child of a British subject (father or widowed mother) who during infancy has become resident in the country where the parent has become naturalised, and has by the law of that country also become naturalised there, ceases to be a British subject.

The Naturalisation Act also enables any person who is a natural-born subject, both of this and of another State, to make a declaration of alienage, if of full age and under no disability; and thereupon he ceases to be a British subject.

The rule of the Common Law was that marriage did not alter the national status of a woman, whether she was the British wife of an alien or an alien married to a British husband. This rule has been entirely abrogated by s. 8 (1). The effect of s. 8 (1), as the late Mr. Hall pointed out, is that if an Englishwoman marries the subject of a State the law of which does not confer his national character upon her, she ceases to have any national status. The laws of most States certainly attribute to the wife the national character of the husband; but in one country, at any rate-viz. the Argentine Republic-marriage with a subject does not naturalise the wife.

The civil codes of most foreign countries have provided against a loss of national status in such a case. Art. 19 of the French Code Civil, for instance, is as follows:

A Frenchwoman who marries an alien follows the nationality of her husband, unless her marriage does not confer his nationality upon her, in which event she remains French.

The rule that a married woman takes the national character of her husband is unqualified. Therefore, if an Englishwoman marries a subject of a foreign State resident in England, though they continue to reside here, she ceases to be a British subject. In this respect the law of the United States is different.4

Mr. Hall was of opinion that when an Englishwoman marries an alien. who has no national status, she does not lose her British nationality.5

Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q.B.D. 647.

2 Cockburn, Nationality, p. 11.

3 Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 49.

1 Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 Fed. R. 556.

5

Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 50.

S. 8 (1) of the Naturalisation Act was probably intended to place the wife, as regards national status, in the same position as her husband. Yet when there is no foreign State of which he is a subject at the time of marriage, s. 8 (1) may be construed as being inoperative. If a woman should marry a native of a wholly uncivilised country, she would probably, according to Mr. Hall's view, also not lose her nationality. Such a country, he argues, is not a State. The term "State," he says, applies only to permanently established independent communities, formed with political objects, possessing a definite political organisation, and guided by a sense of moral obligation towards other communities.1

66

Resumption of British Nationality. Having enabled natural-born British subjects to renounce their allegiance, the Naturalisation Act provides for the resumption, by them, of their British nationality. The drafting of s. 8 by which this is effected is somewhat peculiar. The section runs thus: A natural-born British subject who has become an alien in pursuance of this Act, and is in this Act referred to as a statutory alien, may" apply for a certificate of readmission to British nationality. The only natural-born subject who is referred to in the Act as a statutory alien is a widow who became an alien by her marriage. Therefore, if these words just quoted are to be construed in their ordinary sense, a widow so circumstar.ced is the only natural-born subject who can resume British nationality. It is, however, clearly shown, by the remainder of s. 8 and by s. 10 (4), that this is not the proper construction. S. 10 (4), for instance, deals with the case of a child whose father has resumed British nationality. S. 8 obviously means that every natural-born subject who has become an alien under this Act may be described as a statutory alien, and may under certain circumstances resume his nationality. For this purpose he must, by s. 8, perform the same conditions as an alien who wishes to become naturalised. He must, therefore, within a limited time (eight years under the existing regulations) have either resided five years in the United Kingdom or have served under the Crown for the same time, and must intend to continue this residence or service. The granting of the certificate is discretionary.

In foreign countries a subject who has lost his status through naturalisation elsewhere can usually resume his national character as soon as he returns with the intention of residing.

The period of five years seems an unduly long one, especially in the case of persons who in childhood became naturalised in a foreign State by reason of the naturalisation of a parent. In fact, it would be more just in such a case of involuntary expatriation to allow the child to resume his British nationality without any qualifying period, if within a limited time after attaining his majority he returns to the kingdom with the intention of residing.

Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 130.

A widow being a natural-born British subject, who became an alien by her marriage, is expressly declared to be a statutory alien (s. 10 [2]). She cannot, therefore, resume British nationality until after five years' residence. In this respect foreign States are usually more liberal. Thus, when a Frenchwoman's marriage is dissolved by the death of her husband, or by divorce, she recovers her French nationality "with the authorisation of the Government, provided she resides in France or returns declaring that she intends to remain there."1 A similar provision exists in most of the other foreign codes.

The status of a British subject married to a foreigner and afterwards divorced is not expressly dealt with in the Act. S. 10 (1) only says that "a married woman shall be deemed to be a subject of the State of which her husband is for the time being a subject." There is no express declaration, as in the case of a widow, that a divorced woman is a statutory alien. I have, however, already given my reasons for the conclusion that every natural-born subject who has become an alien in pursuance of the Act is a "statutory alien," whether expressly referred to as such or not. If this be so, it follows that the divorced woman remains an alien until she obtains a certificate of readmission to British nationality after fulfilling the conditions set out in s. 8.

By s. 10 (4):

Where the father, or the mother, being a widow, has obtained a certificate of readmission to British nationality, every child of such father or mother who during infancy has become resident in the British dominions with such father or mother shall be deemed to have resumed the position of a British subject to all intents.

66

The word resumed causes much difficulty. A person can only resume, in the ordinary sense of the word, a status which he has lost. If the natural-born subject has become naturalised elsewhere, or has made a declaration of alienage, his children subsequently born abroad are not natural-born subjects. Are they deemed to have resumed" the British nationality which they never possessed, by residing with the parent in the British dominions? Perhaps, as Mr. Dicey suggests, the word "deemed " implies that they are to be legally treated as if they had resumed British nationality. Mr. Hall, on the other hand, was of opinion that such a construction is not possible, so that, according to his view, the provision only operates in favour of an infant who was born a British subject, and ceased to be one by the act of his parent.3

I think on the whole that the construction suggested by Mr. Dicey is the correct one, and that the words "deemed to have resumed should be read as if they meant "shall be deemed to have been formerly a British subject and to have resumed the position of one."

1 Code Civil, Art. 19.

2

Conflict of Laws, p. 745. 3 Foreign Jurisdiction, p. 53.

That this construction is not altogether consistent with the wording of the section must be admitted. On the other hand, Mr. Hall's view does not give full effect to the words "every child." It makes them equivalent to "every child who was a natural-born British subject." If Mr. Hall was right, the remarkable result follows that, although when an alien by birth becomes naturalised in the United Kingdom, his children who become resident with him are naturalised with him, yet when a statutory alien regains his British nationality, his alien-born child remains an alien under precisely similar circumstances. It may safely be assumed that the legislature did not desire to place the children of statutory aliens in a less favourable situation than the children of aliens by birth. If the construction favoured by Mr. Dicey be the proper one, the further question arises, What is the status of the child who "resumes" British nationality? When the father obtains a certificate of readmission to British nationality, he is no doubt restored to the status of a natural-born subject. If the child was born a British subject, the result must be the same. But it is improbable that the Act would be held to do more than confer naturalisation on an alienborn child. If the words of the section had been "every child . . . shall be deemed to have resumed the position of a British subject or to have become a naturalised British subject," the law on this point would have been placed on a clear and satisfactory basis.

The use of the term "has become resident" in this sub-section and in the provision of s. 8 (2), relating to the children of British subjects naturalised abroad, has been adversely criticised. Mr. Dicey says that the expression is "deplorably vague." Its vagueness may, however, be thought a merit. What constitutes residence is a question of fact which may depend on a number of circumstances. The time spent in the country is only one factor. Thus, a child may spend most of the year in a school in one country, and yet may truly be said to be resident with its parents in another. Each case must be considered on its particular facts; and no definition of residence could be framed which would be a satisfactory test in all. Whether the question of residence be for the Courts or for the legal advisers of the Crown, it will be easier for them to come to a just conclusion when they are not fettered by any hard-and-fast definition.

The provision "every child who during infancy has become resident in the British dominions with such father or mother shall be deemed to have resumed the position of a British subject" is not altogether free from ambiguity in another respect. The child may have resided with the parent before the latter's resumption of British nationality, and have ceased so to reside, or he may be residing with the parent at the time, or he may only come into residence afterwards. The language of the clause is, however, perfectly general, and therefore it seems that residence with the parent at any time, whether before or after the parent regains his British status, is sufficient to make the provision applicable.

Mr. Dicey asks if "during infancy" means until the period of infancy has expired.1 There seems to be no good reason for adopting such a forced construction of the words. The change of the term "has become resident during infancy" into "is resident on attaining his majority" is not required by the context.

Denization.-Denization is defined by Sir Alexander Cockburn as naturalisation conferred by the sovereign by virtue of the prerogative. The practice of conferring the status of a British subject upon an alien by making him a denizen is one of considerable antiquity. The right of creating denizens is exercised by the Crown by letters patent. Denization does not enable either the denizen or his children born before his denization to inherit real property. This restriction is now, of course, without any importance, as the Naturalisation Act, 1870, has given aliens the same rights in the United Kingdom as natural-born subjects in respect of such property.

Denization is inferior to naturalisation under the present law, in that by 12 & 13 Wm. III., c. 2, s. 3, a denizen, except he be born of English parents, cannot be a privy councillor or a member of either House of Parliament, or hold any office of trust, or receive a grant of lands from the Crown. The only reason why denization is now of any value is that it enables the Crown to grant the status of a British subject to a foreigner who is not qualified by residence or service under the Crown to become naturalised; for there is no restriction upon the right to create denizens.

Naturalisation.-Naturalisation, unless denization is also understood by the term, can only be obtained under the Naturalisation Act of 1870, or by a special Act of Parliament.

Formerly aliens becoming naturalised were excluded by 12 Wm. III., c. 2, and 1 Geo. I., c. 4, from Parliament or the Privy Council, or offices of trust, or from taking a grant of land from the Crown. These provisions were repealed in 1844 by 7 & 8 Vict., c. 66, naturalisation under which did not, however, confer the right to sit in Parliament or become a privy councillor, or any right specially reserved in the certificate of naturalisation. 7 & 8 Vict., c. 66, was repealed by the present Naturalisation Act (that of 1870, 33 Vict., c. 14), which provides (s. 7) that an alien to whom a certificate of naturalisation is granted is entitled in the United Kingdom to all political and other rights of a natural-born subject.

A declaration follows that he shall not, when within the limits of the foreign State of which he was a subject previously to obtaining naturalisation, be deemed to be a British subject unless he has ceased to be a subject of that State by law or by reason of a treaty. It seems to follow by implication that, in every other State and in the Colonies, he has the status of a British subject. As by s. 16 the right of the Colonies to confer 1 Conflict of Laws, p. 192.

2

Chitty, Commercial Law, vol. i., No. 5, p. 151; Mr. Abbot's Memorandum, p. 8.