CO129-503-8 Treatment of Asiatic British subjects by French Authorities in Indo-China 30-12-1926 - 20-10-1927 — Page 7

14. H.O

Fremishes

obsons

(

2817/27

7

See 30014/27 HK

拃

Is this so? If

быть

based

uracy as our own law is

ન

partly on jos same mini

+ pactes

↓

مسر

We have at last got a reply out of the

Home Office after a delay of five months which,

considering the poverty of their observations

seems to be inexcusable.

brei soli

JSR

See our dapps of 26 May 30014/27

in which

Fo concurred

The

ما

に

If appears

by conect

Soclaima là

25.R

But us So claim

accord protection in such cires!

THE

Their first two suggestions are unobjection -

able, but the third raises highly controversal

issues which we would prefer to avoid if possible.

I think the best solution would be to omit any

reference to the dual nationality question from

the draft reply, but to instruct the Governor when

sending the reply to the French Consul to include

in his covering letter a paragraph to the following

effect:-

"It should be remembered, however, that the

"Chinese Nationality Law is hand on the jus

х

based

soli

sanguinis and not the jus loci; and the

"Chinese authorities are therefore apt to

over

"claim jurisdiction

or persons of Chinese

част "origin when in China, even though they may

"under British law be British subjects by

"virtue of birth or naturalisation in British

"territory. This conflict of view sometimes

"gives rise to difficulty and it is hoped

"that if and when it becomes possible to

"enter into treaty negotiations with a

"Chinese authority, an opportunity will

"occur

of

concluding an agreement to

"safeguard the position of such classes

"of persons when visiting China".

The addition proposed by the Home Office

is definitely inaccurate and I do not see that

it