CO885-(10-11) — Page 697

2619.

(AMARANS

325) aniqumpur (55 ml se ni finter

10 STETOR) AT

saq2 in micho nda et badyor al me ab Lelý že spot pomyling oft mori vak.

ti

147

the bre

F

1

HT

obrze on?

citros de a balapos sad

No. 554.

(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

SIR,

Foreign Office, March 5, 1869. I AM directed by the Earl of Clarendon to acquaint you that his Lordship requested the opinion of the proper Law Officers of the Crown in regard to the Despatch of the Governor of the Straits Settlements enclosed in your letter of the 3rd ultimo, representing the hardship which might be inflicted on British subjects of Chinese origin by the regulation, recently issued by Her Majesty's Minister in China, requiring such persons to wear a distinctive dress when travelling or residing within the Chinese Empire.

I am now to request that you will state to Earl Granville that the Law Officers have reported that the conditions on the matter of costume, under which British subjects of Chinese descent should travel in China, are a question of policy and of negotiation with the Chinese Government rather than of law. British subjects have no international right to travel in China, except so far as treaty gives them permission, and it is within the strict province of the British Government to decide on grounds of expediency what conditions as to costume shall be prescribed to British subjects.

The Law Officers state further that the regulation of Sir Rutherford Alcock does not appear to them to be illegal or beyond his powers.

The letter of the Governor of the Straits Settlements will, however, be referred to

Sir Rutherford Alcock for his consideration, with a view to the possibility of modifying the regulations objected to by the Governor.

The Under Secretary of State,

Colonial Office.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

E. HAMMOND.

A

Y

rul T

o 16378.774.

95.—¿/66.

1.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O. 885

11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO

?