CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 5

+

period of the lease these people are British subjects and that we are not only entitled but bound to protect them in China. Sir W.. Davidson however argues that international law does not prevent China from legislat- ing municipally; and that if Chinese law prescribes

屮

+

such persons to be Chinese subjects in China, we cannot plead international law against this view. The Foreign Office in writing to Sir J. Jordan suggested that the Chinese Government might be asked to agree to fixing a period of say, six months, during which residents in the New Territories might opt for one or the other nation- ality. On the cognate question (b) of the right to protect in China natural born British subjects who were the children of immigrant Chinese subjects Mr. Hurst in suggesting that we might now come to some agreement with China on the whole question in view of the Nationality Law, pointed out that China has nothing to gain by agreeing to the present system, and that we should have to reduce our claim anyhow in this respect. The Foreign Office suggested to Sir J.Jordan that the solu- tion should be found in encouraging all Anglo Chinese to divest themselves of Chinese nationality under the new Law.

4. Sir J. Jordan's reply is to the effect that it was a mistake to include natural born subjects of immigrant parentage in the Protection rules: he agrees that the whole question might be opened with China and he recommends that we should wait till the Dutch ho are now negotiating the very point have fixed up matters with the Chinese Government. So far as I

understand the last paragraph of his letter he would at once withdraw British protection from the children of

+

+ pp. 23,24

prim

At least is my inter

tion of the obscure pass on p. 1 of

letter of 1p.22 ofprint Nov, 1910.

+

p. 22 of pr

immigrants, and also from persons registered at British consulates in Siam, before the negotiations with China are opened. I can't say that I see much good in giving part of our position away at once. If the right is given

up as part of the negotiations it might have some

effect on the Chinese

abandon the right now.

+

but they won't thank us if we

Incidentally, as Foreign Office remark there is the question to be settled in that case, of what is to become of persons who have been registered for years as British subjects.

5. As to Dr. Ho Kai (question (c)) neither Foreign Office nor Sir J. Jordan make any specific reply though from the Foreign Office letter and print it seems clear that they are in favour of encouraging Anglo-Chinese to divest themselves of Chinese nationality. All that Sir J. Jordan says on the new Lay is that it is in too fluid a condition to make it the basis of an arrangement

Still I see no with China on the whole question. reason why as the law is in force Ho Kai and other indi- viduals should not be encouraged to make use of it for

the purpose;

and I would tell Sir F. Lugard so.

6.

As to (d), pending any negotiations with China I think we must carry on as before viz: give protection

in China to persons of Chinese race who are:-

(1) Persons domiciled in the Colony at the time of cession and their children

(2) Children born in a British possession of parents also born in a British possession

(3) Children born in a British possession of

naturalised subjects.

(1800). W.20,024-26. 6000. 11/08. A.&E.W.

18,012--27. 8600. 10/09.

(15,613).

>>

immigrants,

7.