8ft
Jest to ge
|moidogel deitia
!
mina!
conflint is between Jus soli svi jus Bad- guinis: discuss posi- tion.
Confidential
114
to singapore Horukong.
ま
INT PUBSNL SO ELANUE
vad 1 Jogt
ge's
það de Tatars 7-Istanc) ►'ylastak elf Tor】 do teq
1703
+
zo fequeb
Melontare sit mo best amet, no evit
ensaid) to stagione d{n}$}? #bebrot
J
Tga Eero .9g ni ma
# 4
1 TEA
·
te duisons mit gelėmuą me
J pred t
anybrining" WEST
I takai dol言
AIXO
gope Steach
5% of
دمام
NURTUŰ BOBUSTAN
A
sir,
August 14, 1932.
I have today received from the Foreign Office nopy
of a despatch addressed to the Secretary of bate by the Colo- nini Office Ko.23170/22 ( T7455/593/310) of June 22, 1928
and have the honour to offer the following observations on the points raised by His Excellency the levernor of the Straits
jettlments in the enclosure therein, with regard to the pro-
teation to be afforded to źritish subjects of Minese descent
in hina.
I agree with 3ir Louis Juillenard that the status
of such, born in the Straits Settlementa and the Federated Malay Bates, 18, in the majority of cases, on a soewhat dif... ferent footing to that of those born in Hongkong, inassuch as the taking-out of itish papers of nationality on the part of the former presses an intention of remaining purasperbly within the "apire. I also entirely agree with His 'xeellmay in holding tht a bad impression is likely to be created by sa #EDUnOment that the British To ́n is unable to afford the
siemante protection in China.
1. I sa not, however, reparei to uzr • that lorê Darby's Miotum of 1883 holda good today, in view of altered poli- tinal conditions in hina, rem:lting in a dadiflom: ion of her laws on modern lines, and in view of the fact that children of hinese parents born on dritish soil, whilst reomised und entitled to protection as Äritish subjeo ta the world over, are. not so recognised on returning to the country of origin of their parents, Nor can I admit that the upholding, on the part of Mr Beilby Alatan, K.Ü.M. J. 7.3..
1
the
"is Majesty's Minister,
EIN Q
•