G
on business in this Colony, and have effectively rendered the assistance required. Others have refused either to take notice of applications made through Solicitors of Hongkong, insisting upon it that the applications must come from the Colonial Government, or to render assistance when the application has been made on behalf of a native of China unless that native has become a naturalized British subject. These Consuls have expressed it as their opinion that Article 23 of the Treaty was not intended for the benefit of Chinese merchants or residents in the Colony, but for the benefit of British subjects only.
On each occasion on which the Consul has refused to pay attention to the applications I have made, I have strongly urged that there is nothing whatever in the wording of the Article in the Treaty to show that it was intended only to apply to cases where British subjects have suffered at the hands of dishonest Chinese, but that it must be taken to have been intended for the benefit of all merchants and others resident in the Colony with whom subjects of China have come to the Colony to trade, and who being especially invited by the British Government to settle and carry on business in Hongkong (see Elliot's Proclamation) look to that Government to protect their interests in the businesses established by them in the Colony. Some of the Consuls in China, amongst them my brother, now Cousul General in Yunnan, have fully concurred with me in my views as to their duties under the Treaty, but for a long time past those who have held the appointment of British Consul General in Canton have entertained a different opinion, with the result that in a very large number of instances, I believe, it las not been thought worth while to take any steps under Article 23 of the Treaty. Doubtless this fact became well known to the Chinese of Canton, and has probably been the cause of far more cases of dishonest Chinamen coming to the Colony, and defrauding the Chinese business men of the place, than there would have been had it been understood that the British Government, through its Consuls, would interfere to prevent such frauds or cause the punishment of the offenders. The prosperity of the Colony has undoubtedly depended to a very large extent on the Chinese population and business men of the place, who moreover contribute largely to its revenue, and it certainly seems to me that it is the duty of the British Government, and was considered to be such at the time of the framing of Article 23 of the Tientsin Treaty, to render as much assistance to the Chinese merchants of the Colony in the recovering of the 'debts lawfully incurred to them in Hongkong as it would to British subjects.
No. 2.
Yours very truly,
C. D. WILKINSON,
MINUTE BY THE HONOURABLE THE COLONIAL SECRETARY.
Colonial Secretary's Office, 27th July, 1905.
Your Excellency,-When Lord CHARLES BERESFORD came out here to examine the condition of British Commercial interests in China he was in the habit of putting to each British Merchant the question: "What is your grievance? What do you want me to do for you?" The answers that he got from the best informed men were "We want nothing beyond what the Treaty of Tientsin gives
What we do want is to see our rights under the Treaty enforced.”
us.
2. The Treaty of Tientsin is, in my view, a rather conspicuously lucid document, as Treaties go, and I cannot see that much fault can be found with the wording of Article 23 of it.
3. The meaning of the Article is perfectly clear and is clearly understood by both His Majesty's representatives and Chinese Officials.
4. What is wanting is the desire or the power (in some instances both one and the other) on the part of the Chinese Officials to carry out their obligations under the Treaty. I can see no possible advantage in seeking an amendment of the Treaty. Even if the Article particularly referred to were re-drafted with the closest legal phraseology, the difficulty of getting the Chinese Authorities to do their part under it would still remain.
ǎ. To
pass now to a criticism of the Memoranda enclosed in the Chief Justice's
The Registrar's Memorandum.
letter:-
6. I have never known an instance in which a Consul refused to take action under Article 23 because the plaintiff was not a British subject.
7. I fail to see what better chance there would be to get a formal judginent. executed by the Chinese Officials than there is in getting them to take action on representations made by His Majesty's representative.
8. I cannot see where the expense or cumbersomeness of the present system comes in.
9. This Office and the Consul-General charge nothing for the correspondence they carry on on behalf of ereditors. If the matter were entirely in the hands of Lawyers the expenses would probably be far heavier,
The Deputy Registrar's Memorandumi,
10. In No. 1 of his recommendations I see a practical means of cutting at the root of the evil.
11. Against No. 2 I again object that as everything depends on the willingness and power of the Chinese Authorities to help, no smelioration can be effected till the Government of China is placed on a more satisfactory footing. It must be remembered that Chinese Magistrates are not only venal but powerless to enforce their own orders in the face of hostile opposition of the population should the latter sympathise with the debtor-and the debtor has of course generally the sympathy of his fellow-citizens. But in any case does not Article IV of the Mekay Treaty 1902 provide protection enough if the Chinese Authorities would do their duty ?
The Official Receiver's Memorandum. 12. I should like to have Mr. Scorr's version of the interview Mr. WAKEMAN refers to.
If Foreign Consuls get more satisfaction than British Consuls in these cases of debt, it must be owing to the backing the former get in all their actions by their Governments. But there is no evidence that they do get more satisfaction. 13. I entirely agree in the last paragraph of Mr. WAKEMAN'S minute. has correctly indicated the crux of the matter.
Mr. Wilkinson's Memorandum.
le
14. The position taken up by the present Consul-General is, as far as my ex- perience goes, as follows, and I consider it legitimate and justifiable
15. (1.) If the creditor is a British subject not of Chinese race, the Consul- General will take up his case without requiring the creditor to go before the Chinese Courts (where of course he would not obtain a bearing) but advises him to apply for his assistance through the Hongkong Government because this streng- thens his hands cis-à-vis the Viceroy.
16. (2.) In all other cases the Consul-General requires-
(a) that the creditor be introduced and recommended to his good offi-
ces by the Hongkong Government;
(b.) to satisfy himself that it is a bond fide case of absconding;
(c.) if the debtor has absconded from Hongkong to defraud his creditor,
the Consul-General will interfere;
(d) but if the debtor resides in Canton, his address is known, and it is really a question of debt between the parties, the Consul-General requires the creditor to claim satisfaction in the Chinese Courts ; (e.) if the Hongkong Government subsequently reports failure of justice
in the case, the Consul will then take it up personally.
17. (3.) In no circumstances will the Consul-General receive communica-
tions froin Solicitors direct on behalf of Chinese creditors.
In this he is only following the example of a Hongkong Governor who made it a rule that all representations from the Chinese Community should be made through the Registrar-General.
277