26221.
may be
I AM directed by Mr. Chamberlain, in answer to your letter of the
15th May, 1899, 9th May, 1899, to inform you that the question of the explosives monopoly in the South African Republic is, as you are aware, still an open one, but that in whatever way it settled, Her Majesty's Government could not support a claim for damages so specula- tive in character as that put forward by you
and founded upon a hypothesis, for which there appears to be no sufficient support, that a certain amount of trade in roburite at a certain price would have been carried on by you African Republic but for the existence of the explosives monopoly.
your licensee in the South
Mr. W. C. Thomson,
The Secretary to the
your company,
Roburite Explosives Company, Limited.
I am, &c.
R. E. W. R. B. F.
SIR.
No. 227.
(Hong KoN.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice. 27th September, 1899. WE were honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Lucas's letter of the 4th instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us a copy of a despatch dated the 21st July last from the Governor of Hong Kong raising the question of the national status of the inhabitants of the territory recently added to that Colony under the Convention of the 9th June, 1898, between the Governments of Great Britain and China.
That Mr. Lucas was also to enclose copies of the Convention and of the Order in Council of the 20th October, 1898, by which the territories within the limits and for the term described in the Convention were declared to be part and parcel of the Colony of Hong Kong, and also copies of the four forms of British Subject Certificate granted to persons of Chinese origin born in Hong Kong mentioned in the Memoranduin by the Acting Chief Justice of the Colony enclosed in the Governor's despatch.
That it would be observed that the Acting Attorney-General of Hong Kong considered that as the new territory was only leased to Great Britain for a term of years the inhabitants did not thereby become British Subjects.
That
you desired to be favoured with our opinion (1), whether the persons inhabiting
the new territory at the date of the cession who were then Chinese Subjects were to be regarded as British Subjects for all purposes as from 1st July, 1898, or as from the date when the territory was definitely taken over, viz. : the 16th April last; and if not, what was their national status ?
(2.) Whether persons born in the new territory during the continuance of the lense were to be regarded as British Subjects.
We have taken the papers into our consideration and have the honour to
Report
(1.) That the persons inhabiting the new territory who were before the cession Chinese Subjects are to be regarded as British Subjects for all purposes as from the 16th April last. Cession of territory effects a change in the nationality of the inhabitants. This territory has been ceded; it is British territory, and the fact that the cessión is for a term of years only does not affect the conclusion that by the cession the inhabitants become for that term British Subjects.
(2.) Persons born in the territory during the continuance of the Lease must be regarded as British Subjects.
We have, &c.,
The Right Honourable Joseph Chamberlain, M.P'..
&c., &c.,
&c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER, ROBERT B. FINLAY.
3765-25-9,99 Wt 439
D&S
G
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO