I them that in
ught
& intime to
they
proket such person provided that the have resided there continuously for
1
a reasonable period, thare not sme back to reside permanenth
in China. This was
what
wo night.
agreed
in 1907.
rammath modify the period of residence requiradì 3 year Certant rather short hut it, it ware
tă reu
extruded to
the satisfactory.
I think it comed
Le Nther respets & afree
with hur Robinsa.
AVC
Sp.
13/20
414
مستحل شباب 14
hr. 15
бля
especiall 7367/04
123201
6 of
FO. print.
3
In the memorandum on Gov/21149/10 I discussed certain points which we put to the Foreign Office, saying that if Foreign Office concurred we proposed to inform HongKong in the sense indicated in the memorandum. These points were:-
(a)
The nationality of persons resident in the New Territories of HongKong had not been decided, as thought by Sir H. May who incorrectly said that Lord Crewe had ruled that British nationality could not be claimed for these persons. Certificates of protection might therefore still be issued to them.
(b) We could not now reconsider the 1904 decision to protect in China natural born British subjects ho were children of Chinese immigrants subjects of China; (Sir H. May wished us to abandon the protection of these persons).
(c) Dr Ho Kai, C.M.G., wished to take advantage
of the new Chinese Law of Nationality to renounce formally
his Chinese nationality. We proposed to encourage him and others to do so.
(a)
Sir H. May had asked for instructions as to the issue of certificates to persons other than those mentioned in (a) and (b) above:
we proposed to tell him that there was no need to interfere with existing arrangements.
2. We asked Foreign Office whether it would be
expedient to approach China with a view to getting that Government to recognise some stage in descent at which it will withdraw its claim to regard Chinese born in HongKong as Chinese subjects.
for
3. As regards (a) the nationality of residents in the New Territories, Mr. Hurst thinks that during the period