must be given by the individual himself.
vi.
312
As regards persons of Chinese race
resident in Hongkong Island at the time of its cession in
1841, and in Kowloon on 24th. October, 1860:-
I agree (with deference) with Mr. Hurst that they should be regarded as solely British subjects. The Attorney-General holds that the former have a dual nationality and the latter are Chinese subjects. Of the former there are practically none left, and of the latter few. The subject is therefore not important.
Children of the above born (a) in the
vii.
King's dominions (b) elsewhere:-
These two classes I submit should be
treated in all respects similarly to the two similar
classes under iv.
viii.
Persons resident in the New Territories
at the time of its cession on lease in 1898 and children born of such persons (a) in the New Territories, (b) in Hongkong or elsewhere in the King's dominions, and (c) in China:-
This is a clearly defined group, and I have nothing to add to what appears in the correspondence regarding it. In view of the vital necessity to the Colony
of Hongkong of maintaining the line of defences in the
Kowloon hills, of the outlay on the Railway and other
Public Works, and of the immense benefit to the people
which has been conferred by British rule, and their known
desire to remain under that rule, it is, I presume, in-
-conceivable that the Territories will ever revert to
China and I would therefore advocate its inclusion with
the rest of the Colony for the purposes of the present
discussion. Of the evils of the present condition of things the case of the Fugitive Criminal Liang Tou affords a good
instance.
Briefly summarised the circumstances
were as follows:-
Acting