British subjects, but that it will be sufficient if they take this oath of allegiance which is in fact similar & that required of Volunteers in England (see deg? & Straits in 16159/88) and to that required of the Police in Otting (sec 0.0 Sched. III. f 81887) who are not required to be British subjects.
? Inform W.O. that we propose to inform OAS. to that effect but first send papers to C.D.C. for observations.
Jing. 10 June 90
Maji Clauko
Run 12/6
Off. Opinion need not be naturalized and the procedure proposed in above minute should be followed.
Concurred by C.S.G. 15.7.90. Pati
17.7.90. Jo Jawat M. Braustin Gr. Marte
See note from W.O. herewith, asking that we should throw no difficulty in the way of naturalizing these Chinese.
500
The Attorney Gen. of Hongkong has, you will see, expressed Opinion that these Chinamen would hardly come under the phrase "person of colour" 0.95(2) of Army Act 1881 consider origin & history of that subsection
But surely their origin & history need not be considered, provided the words cover Chinamen. Doubtless that they do.
? Send Despatch to W.O. saying that Lord Knutsford is advised that naturalization is under 1.95(2) of Army Act 1881 and that his Lordship would hesitate to depart from the practice which has long prevailed at Hongkong only to naturalize individuals by special order, such Order only being passed in case of persons who are known or believed to have bona fide taken up their residence in Hongkong for good and that he proposes with W. Stanhope's concurrence inform Governor that the oath of allegiance required by s.d. the Police Ord. will suffice I then