302
է
they were born subsequent to the naturalization of the father, and (c) that they do not claim the benefits of British and Chinese nationality concurrently.
I am not sure as to (a) but it would seem probable that prolonged residence in the interior of China (i.e. elsewhere than in a Treaty port) indicates an absence of the animus manendi and therefore should tend to the 'disfranchisement" of such persons.
As to
(b) I do not know what the legal position actually is but I take it that children born before naturali- zation keep the nationality of the father at the time of their birth. If this is not so, I agree with Sir F. Lugard in thinking that in practice this rule should be followed. (c) Of course is the crux of the whole matter. The trouble, so far as I can make out, has in many cases arisen because Anglo-Chinese have acted as Chinese subjects until they got into trouble with the Chinese authorities when they ran to the British
if they Consul. Clearly they can't have it both ways: desire British protection they must accept whatever disabilities their British nationality may produce.
This applies to all Anglo-Chinese. Those who have divested themselves of Chinese nationality must be treated in all respects as British subjects and shouldho be allowed to act as Chinese subjects. I am inclined
to think that if persons of this class attempt to pass
as Chinese subjects when it is to their advantage to
do so, they should be refused protection. All other Anglo-Chinese by virtue of Chinese law have a dua)
nationality, and the rule should be applied in every
case
sa tur. Turne
ново
M
these
art which i
case- not only in cases of children of naturalized British subjects.
(iii)
Children of naturalized subjects born outside the King's Dominions.
The Acting Attorney General, following the Chief Justice, says that such children are not British subjects. If as I understand colonial naturalization is only effective in the naturalizing colony, it seems clear that children born outside the King's dominions are not British subjects. Incidentally Sir F.Lugard on this point appears to have fallen into error. He says "Our contention that place of birth decides nationality would appear to shut them out altogether". I understand British law to be
(a) that any one born on British territory is a British subject.
(b) that the children of British subjects wherever born are british subjects.
(iv) Children wherever born of parents who were
british subjects (i.e. not naturalized).
Sir F. Lugard wants to treat theseas British
subjects only if born in the King's dominions and to refuse protection in case of long residence in China.
He suggests that those born outside the dominions should only be recognised as British subjects if
not born in China.
(a)
their father has divested himself of Chinese
(b)
nationality.
I do not think that this can be accepted, if, suppose, such persons are British subjects natural-born, we cannot cease to protect them.
(v) Children buru in liong Kong of Chinese subjects.
Sir F.Lugard would only grant passports
29
to