China. They have, no doubt, a dual
338
nationality, but Mr.Harcourt is ad-
vised that in this regard they do not differ
from any other class of British subject
of Chinese race except those persons
who have divested themselves of Chinese
Nationality under the recent law.
Consequently there is no reason why
protection should not be afforded to
them as to other British subjects;
and the fact that, in the case of
14
Liang Top the Chinese Viceroy refused
A
to recognise the claim of Hong Kong
to regard him as a British subject,
though regrettable, is not of any
greater importance than similar refusals
on the part of the Chinese authorities
in other cases.
16. As regards class 9, (women married
or unmarried) Mr Harcourt has no observa-
tions to offer.
.
17. It will be seen that the Governor
proposes to issue no certificates of
RAFT.
British Nationality except to persons
who are undeniably British subjects.
The meaning of this expression is not
altogether clear; but judging from the
views expressed in the previous paragraphs
of Sir F.Lugard's despatch, Mr.Harcourt
thinks that he meant persons born in
British territory of parents who were
British subjects otherwise than by
naturalisation and who in addition had
divested themselves of Chinese nationality.
But most of the classes of persons men-
tioned in the despatch are undeniably
British subjects, although in the present
state of Chinese law they are also
subjects of China. Mr Harcourt considers
that it would be well to ascertain exactly
what procedure in the matter the Govern-
ment of Hong Kong propose to adopt, and
he is therefore making enquiry of the
Officer Administering the Government on
the
British