Archive

All Letters

Browse the complete collection of historical letters, memos, and telegrams.

46,149 letters
Letter

“palmerston.” to In 1865 Mr. Wood reported that he had sent to Malta a Maltese family consisting of a widow and minor children, who had been induced by distress to embrace the Mahomedan religion. As the children of a Maltese father, during their minority, remained British subjects, and it was assumed that the application made for their removal to Malta had been at the instance of their next relation or friend, Mr. Wood’s proceedings were approved. Queen’s advocate, January 13, 1865, January 16, 1840

From “palmerston.”
To In 1865 Mr. Wood reported that he had sent to Malta a Maltese family consisting of a widow and minor children, who had been induced by distress to embrace the Mahomedan religion. As the children of a Maltese father, during their minority, remained British subjects, and it was assumed that the application made for their removal to Malta had been at the instance of their next relation or friend, Mr. Wood’s proceedings were approved. Queen’s advocate, January 13, 1865
January 16, 1840

Lord Palmerston to Sir T. Read. “January 16, 1840. “Sir: Mr. Ancram, in his dispatch No. 14, of the 2d of June, 1838, reported the case of a young Maltese…

19th CenturyDiplomacyForeign Policy
Letter

[Peru.], undated

January 1, 1873

[Peru.] [undated.] In 1851, Mr. Vice-Consul Nugent requested to be informed whether he was to register as British subjects the children of British residents born in Peru, and whether children…

19th CenturyDiplomacyReconstruction
Letter

(Signed) “ RUSSELL .” to A question was raised in 1865 as to the liability of British subjects in Mexico to serve in the police and national guard. Law officers, May 22, 1865. Under the advice of the law officers, Mr. Scarlett was instructed that they could properly Law officers, June 20, 1865. be called upon to serve in the police, or to pay a tax for exemption, but not in the national guard, which might be used for active military service. To Mr. Scarlett , No. 50; June 26, 1865. . Queen’s Advocate; June 9, 1865. In May, 1865, Mr. Scarlett forwarded a copy of a decree recently published in Mexico, by which the illegitimate children born of foreigners and Mexican women, as well as those foreigners who may acquire landed property in Mexico, are to be considered as Mexican subjects. To Mr. Scarlett , No. 51; June 26, 1865. He was instructed that “the decree respecting illegitimate children seemed to furnish no reason for remonstrance from foreign governments, except, perhaps, so far as it extended to the illegitimate children born of Mexican women in foreign States (‘dentro ó fuera del territorio del Impero,’) a matter, however, of little practical importance.” “The decree as to foreigners acquiring landed property should be protested against in so far as it was made retrospective, and that time should be allowed to such aliens to determine whether they would retain their property, and to enable them to dispose of it without injury or loss accruing from this ex post facto law. “With regard to its prospective operation, though it would be severe on foreigners, especially if the words ‘ propieded territoria ’ extend to shares in mines and leases of land and houses, yet it was within the competence of the Mexican government to pass such a law.” To Mr. Scarlett , No. 83; November 1, 1865. Mr. Benjamin Crowther, a British subject who had served in the army of the so-called Confederate States, having applied to Mr. Scarlett for protection, Lord Russell instructed Mr. Scarlett in November, 1865, that “a British subject who has neither been enrolled as a citizen nor naturalized in America, ought not, on the ground of his having served on either side during the civil war, to be deprived in a third country like Mexico of all British protection.” Queen’s Advocate; November 7, 1865. M. Saviñon, a Mexican by birth, having claimed British protection as a British naturalized subject, Mr. Scarlett ’s conduct in refusing it to him in Mexico was approved November, 1865. To Mr. Scarlett , No. 2; November, 1865, June 1, 1865

From (Signed) “ RUSSELL .”
To A question was raised in 1865 as to the liability of British subjects in Mexico to serve in the police and national guard. Law officers, May 22, 1865. Under the advice of the law officers, Mr. Scarlett was instructed that they could properly Law officers, June 20, 1865. be called upon to serve in the police, or to pay a tax for exemption, but not in the national guard, which might be used for active military service. To Mr. Scarlett , No. 50; June 26, 1865. . Queen’s Advocate; June 9, 1865. In May, 1865, Mr. Scarlett forwarded a copy of a decree recently published in Mexico, by which the illegitimate children born of foreigners and Mexican women, as well as those foreigners who may acquire landed property in Mexico, are to be considered as Mexican subjects. To Mr. Scarlett , No. 51; June 26, 1865. He was instructed that “the decree respecting illegitimate children seemed to furnish no reason for remonstrance from foreign governments, except, perhaps, so far as it extended to the illegitimate children born of Mexican women in foreign States (‘dentro ó fuera del territorio del Impero,’) a matter, however, of little practical importance.” “The decree as to foreigners acquiring landed property should be protested against in so far as it was made retrospective, and that time should be allowed to such aliens to determine whether they would retain their property, and to enable them to dispose of it without injury or loss accruing from this ex post facto law. “With regard to its prospective operation, though it would be severe on foreigners, especially if the words ‘ propieded territoria ’ extend to shares in mines and leases of land and houses, yet it was within the competence of the Mexican government to pass such a law.” To Mr. Scarlett , No. 83; November 1, 1865. Mr. Benjamin Crowther, a British subject who had served in the army of the so-called Confederate States, having applied to Mr. Scarlett for protection, Lord Russell instructed Mr. Scarlett in November, 1865, that “a British subject who has neither been enrolled as a citizen nor naturalized in America, ought not, on the ground of his having served on either side during the civil war, to be deprived in a third country like Mexico of all British protection.” Queen’s Advocate; November 7, 1865. M. Saviñon, a Mexican by birth, having claimed British protection as a British naturalized subject, Mr. Scarlett ’s conduct in refusing it to him in Mexico was approved November, 1865. To Mr. Scarlett , No. 2; November, 1865
June 1, 1865

Earl Russel to Mr. Scarlett. Foreign Office, June 1, 1865. “Sir: I have received your dispatch No. 29, of the 23d of March, requesting to be furnished with instructions as…

19th CenturyDiplomacyReconstruction
Letter

“malmesbury.” to To M. Julien, July 11, 1859. In reply to an inquiry addressed to the foreign office in July, 1859, Lord John Russell stated to M. Julien that, “independently of any disabling clause which they may contain, British letters of naturalization do not give the holders of them any right to British protection in the country of their birth.” A case occurred in 1861 in which a M. Casaubon claimed protection from the British embassy at Paris to procure his exemption from the conscription on the ground that he was born in the Mauritius. Lord Cowley, No. 426. It appeared that his father was a Frenchman, and the French government accordingly claimed Mm as a French subject. Lord Cowley, No. 364; March 20, 1861. To Lord Cowley, No. 347; March 20, 1861. Lord Cowley was instructed to request the French government to state the reasons upon which “M. Casaubon had been subjected to the conscription, notwithstanding his certificate of British nationality, and the fact of his having been born in the Queen’s dominions, and having resided there until he was of age.” The result of Lord Cowley’s application to the French government was not reported. Lord Cowley, No. 194; February 4, 1861. A question arose in February, 1861, as to the right of a naturalized British subject, Mr. Zwinger, a Swiss by birth, to be married at the British embassy. Queen’s Advocate; February 27, 1861. Lord Cowley was instructed to allow the marriage in question to be solemnized at the British embassy, taking care that the bride was previously informed that Mr. Zwinger may be considered legally as a Swiss citizen, as well as a naturalized British subject; and that the validity of the marriage might be open to doubt in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere out of England, and recommending her to be previously married in the French civil form. To Lord Cowley, February 24, 1861, March 13, 1858

From “malmesbury.”
To To M. Julien, July 11, 1859. In reply to an inquiry addressed to the foreign office in July, 1859, Lord John Russell stated to M. Julien that, “independently of any disabling clause which they may contain, British letters of naturalization do not give the holders of them any right to British protection in the country of their birth.” A case occurred in 1861 in which a M. Casaubon claimed protection from the British embassy at Paris to procure his exemption from the conscription on the ground that he was born in the Mauritius. Lord Cowley, No. 426. It appeared that his father was a Frenchman, and the French government accordingly claimed Mm as a French subject. Lord Cowley, No. 364; March 20, 1861. To Lord Cowley, No. 347; March 20, 1861. Lord Cowley was instructed to request the French government to state the reasons upon which “M. Casaubon had been subjected to the conscription, notwithstanding his certificate of British nationality, and the fact of his having been born in the Queen’s dominions, and having resided there until he was of age.” The result of Lord Cowley’s application to the French government was not reported. Lord Cowley, No. 194; February 4, 1861. A question arose in February, 1861, as to the right of a naturalized British subject, Mr. Zwinger, a Swiss by birth, to be married at the British embassy. Queen’s Advocate; February 27, 1861. Lord Cowley was instructed to allow the marriage in question to be solemnized at the British embassy, taking care that the bride was previously informed that Mr. Zwinger may be considered legally as a Swiss citizen, as well as a naturalized British subject; and that the validity of the marriage might be open to doubt in Switzerland, France, and elsewhere out of England, and recommending her to be previously married in the French civil form. To Lord Cowley, February 24, 1861
March 13, 1858

Earl of Malmesbury to the Earl of Cowley. Foreign Office, March 13, 1858. My Lord: Your excellency recently requested to be informed how the decisions could be reconciled which had…

19th CenturyDiplomacyForeign Policy