CENTRAL
0434/5/6
9/4/1
I, MITRE COURT BUILDINGS,
TEMPLE, E.C. 4.
13th November 1967.
Sir George Sinclair, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Westminster, London, S.W.1.
Dear Sinclair,
Thank you for your letter: we both enjoyed meeting you and your wife at Dorking.
With regard to our conversation in the House, I forgot give you the reference of that case which I think it very import t for you to look at. You will find it reported ... Vol.III of the 1967 Weekly Law Reports at page 1259.
me division bew en
com citizens.
it
jec.
ΤΟΥ
What I think is wrong is the resent foreigners: Commonwealth citizens: and Uni ea That is quite unsuited to the present siquatici ad I suggest at the proper division ought to be foreigners: ciulzus of indepe units of the Commonwealth, whether they be monarchies or repub... citizens of dependent territories still owned by and directly to H.M.: citizens of the U.K. It does seem to me to be wholl⠀ that dependent territories, which issue passports to "United K. & Colonies" citizens but which put the name of the colony under words "British Passport" on the cover, should be put in the s.. category as wholly independent territori
e have their ow passports. I say that not only as a hi of politics and as a matter of tanių »
Sor
Je
..
but as a **.
er
With regard to the analogy which you are between East
pi
and Hong Kong, I believe that there are three fundamental differ ac
(a) Any necessity for flight arome Bla
ands from the
territories themselves for their own fogdence.
(b)
There was no "necesse w" as such for Flight: it arose from an inability or
independence.
(c) The territories c c..
Subjects".
gness to adapt to black
very
bers, of "British
In Hong Kong if, Gou froid, the situation did arise: -
(a) The necessity for flight would arise from foreign comesü and not from the desire of the people themselves. for independer.