113
2
more was born at Foochow of a Chinese father, reputed to be of Amoy, but concerning whom there is no other evidence. Another was born at Singapore two years before his father was naturalized. Three were born in Amoy of a father born in Moulmein; there is nothing to show that he was the child of a British subject. And there is one who was born at Singapore of a father said to have been a naturalized British subject; his two children, born respectively at Amoy and Shanghae, are also registered as British subjects.
As showing the divergent views sometimes taken by British Consular officers of the question under consideration, I inclose copy of Mr. R. W. Mansfield's despatch covering the earlier Shanghae Return, and of a Memorandum by Mr. P. F. Hausser which accompanied his Return of Anglo-Chinese British subjects registered at Amoy.
It can, I think, be concluded from these facts that the case of Anglo-Chinese born in a British Colony of parents who were subjects of the Emperor of China, or who, at any rate, were not proved to be anything else, does not present any very great difficulties in practice, except that which arises from the clause in the Certificate A, 100 (b), which states that it "does not confer upon the bearer while within the Empire of China any claim or right to British protection." I am of opinion accordingly that there would be little objection to the excision of this restriction from the certificate. Or, if that is considered unadvisable in all cases, I would recommend the adoption of the proposal of Sir Henry Blake that a discretionary power should be vested in the Governor of Hong Kong to enable him to grant protection or assistance in deserving cases. That is to say, he might give a certificate without the restriction above mentioned. It would thus not be necessary, nor, I think, would it be advisable, to possibly leave the protection of such persons to the discretion of Consular officers, who might not exercise it in a uniform manner.
I observe that in the Foreign Office letter of the 4th July last to the Colonial Office, copy of which accompanied your Lordship's despatch, it is suggested that the discretionary power which Sir Henry Blake proposed should be conferred on the Governor might possibly in some instances lead to differential treatment, and might provoke complaints on the ground of alleged favouritism. This could, I venture to think, be obviated if the rule were laid down that the person to whom the certificate was granted must be a bona fide resident of the Colony, and have carried on business there for a certain number of years. I had no opportunity of discussing this point with Sir Henry Blake, as neither of us had seen the Foreign Office letter in which it is raised at the time when I passed through Hong Kong (on the 8th August last on my way to Peking), and your Lordship's despatch did not reach me until the 23rd August, two days after my arrival at my post.
With regard to the last paragraph of that despatch, asking my opinion as to how far any changes that I might recommend will necessitate a previous understanding with the Chinese Government, I have the honour to state that, as regards the proposed revocation of Sir Rutherford Alcock's Circular of 1868 relative to costume, no communication seems necessary, as it has long been a dead letter. With reference to the other point, namely, of recognizing in British subjects born in a British Colony of Chinese parents subjects of China a right to British protection, it may be observed that, on the one hand, such protection is at the present moment actually accorded in numerous cases without provoking any objection on the part of the Chinese Government, and, on the other, that a proposal put forward from our side would inevitably lead to the Chinese reasserting the position that allegiance of Chinese subjects is indelible, and is transmitted to their descendants for ever, no matter where born. I should propose, therefore, to make no communication to the Chinese Government, and to leave them to raise the question if they considered it more necessary than they have hitherto done in existing cases of the kind.
If an Anglo-Chinese British subject fails to register himself at a port he renders himself liable, under Article 114 of the Order in Council of 1865, either to a fine of 10 dollars or to be refused recognition or protection as a British subject. One can see that the latter penalty would be a serious one to inflict on an Anglo-Chinese subject who, having failed to register himself, had fallen into the hands of the Chinese authorities and was detained in their custody in connection with a criminal charge against himself or another. But whether he registers himself or not, he should not be protected in civil matters arising out of business transactions which other British subjects are not by Treaty entitled to enter into.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
ERNEST SATOW
3
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
A.
Acting Consul-General Mansfield to Sir E. Satow.
(No. 32.)
Shanghae, September 30, 1903.
Sir,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Circular of the 8th instant, calling for a Return of British subjects of Chinese descent registered in this Office.
I have now the honour to inclose a Return of the twenty-one persons so registered in Shanghae, giving all the obtainable information with regard to each of them. Personally I have always carried out the Supreme Court instructions (Instructions to His Majesty's Consular officers in China, Japan by Sir Edward Hornby, Knight, pp. 2 and 3), but cases have often come under my notice where persons of Chinese descent have been recognized as British although not possessing the necessary qualifications of being born of parents, also born or naturalized in a British Colony. Consular officers have often been led into this error by certificates and passports granted by the Straits and Hong Kong Governments stating that the holders are entitled to British protection in China. Of late years, however, these certificates and passports are so worded as not to lead Consular officers into error. Where Chinese have, however, wrongfully been granted British nationality for many years it would seem a hardship to suddenly deprive them of it.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
R. W. MANSFIELD,
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
SHANGHAE FIRST RETURN,
1.Liang Chüeh Weng.His father and mother were both born in Penang. He has a certificate stating that his father is entitled to protection as a British subject. His dress is Chinese. 2.Liang Wei MingSon of the above. His birth is registered in His Britannic Majesty's Consulate General, Shanghae. His dress is Chinese. 3.Liang Ch'i ChingSon of Liang Chüeh Weng. As above his birth is registered in the Consulate. His dress is Chinese. 4.Tam Wa (Tom Waugh.)He was born in Hong Kong but no particulars can be procured about this man. His dress is European. 5.Lou Chia Hock.Father and mother were born in Penang. His father's birth was registered there but he has no papers to establish the fact. His dress is Chinese. 6.Kum SuFather and mother born in Penang. He has a certificate from the Government of Penang stating that Kum Allum, his father, is to be entitled to protection as a British subject. His birth is registered at this Consulate. His dress is Chinese. 7.Kum Tex.Father and mother born in Penang. Cousin of the above (i.e., their fathers were brothers). He has no papers besides the Certificate of Registration. His dress is Chinese. Wang Chin Tuan.Father and mother were both born in Penang. He was also in Penang and has a certificate entitling him to protection as a British subject from the Resident Councillor. His dress is Chinese. Ng Hing ShangHis father was a Chinaman in the employ of the East India company in India, his mother Lachmi was a native of India. He holds a certificate stating that he was born in the Almora District, North-West Provinces. Signed by the Commissioner for the Almora District. His dress is Chinese. Som May.He is the illegitimate son of an English father and a Chinese mother. He has a certificate to this effect and stating that he was born on the 10th May. His features as well as his dress are quite European. Fun How ChuFather and mother were both born in Penang. He has a certificate from the Governor of Penang stating that the bearer is entitled to protection as a British subject in Amoy. Dated the 5th March, 1872. He has been registered as a British subject for 30 years. His dress is Chinese.