(
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
145
C.O.
AFFAIRS OF CHINA,
CONFIDENTIAL.
})
[7674]
(No. 37.) Sir,
No. 1.
[March 19.]
SECTION 4
18314 RECE
24 MAY 07
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.-(Received March 9.)
Peking, January 22, 1907. I HAVE the honour to transmit to you herewith copy of a despatch which I received on the 27th November, 1906, from Mr. Fraser, His Majesty's Consul-General at Hankow, forwarding copy of a letter addressed to him by the Municipal Council of the British Concession at Hankow regarding the employment of natives of India in their police force.
The first notification to which the Municipal Council refer is the Notice inclosed in my despatch No. 414 of the 15th October, 1906, and they seem in doubt as to whether it was intended to apply to other municipal police forces in China besides those of Shanghae and Tien-tsin, which are specifically mentioned.
The second notification is "The Shanghae Municipal Police Regulation, 1906," which the Council desire to see extended so as to apply in all respects to Hankow.
On the receipt of Mr. Fraser's despatch I consulted Mr. Bourne, Acting Judge of His Majesty's Supreme Court, and requested his opinion---
(a.) As to the expediency of extending the King's Regulation and Notice so as to include other British municipalities in China.
(.) As to the expediency of extending the power of deportation from China in the case of Indian subjects employed in China.
At the same time, on the 4th December, I addressed a despatch to the Government of India inquiring whether the Notice issued at Shanghae and Tien-tsin was intended
to apply to all British municipalities in China requiring Indian police.
I have now received a reply from Mr. Bourne, copy of which I have the honour to inclose, from which you will observe that he sees no legal objection to extending "The Shanghae Municipal Police Regulation, 1906," as proposed. I venture therefore to forward herewith, for approval, a draft of a new King's Regulation drawn up on the same lines, but applicable to the municipal police forces of all British Concessions in China.
As regards the question raised by Mr. Bourne as to the advisability of putting Indian subjects employed by other than British municipalities under the Regulations, I am of opinion that this would only lead to complications, and that it would be better, therefore, to leave it alone.
In the last paragraph of his reply Mr. Bourne points out that the Notice respecting the local recruitment of natives of India can have no effect except by the consent of the Municipal Council. While I concur in this view, it appears to me that the consent of the Municipal Council of Hankow is assured, as they themselves have expressed the desire for the extension of the notice to Hankow. As regards Shanghae and Tien-tsin, the consent of the Municipal Council at the former port was obtained before the issue of the Notice on the 31st October, and at the latter port it was published on the 19th Before extending it to October without any protest being made at the time or since. other ports, however, I propose to await the reply of the Government of India to my despatch of the 4th December. If they desire the extension I will communicate the Notice to His Majesty's Consuls concerned, and request them to obtain the consent of the Municipal Councils before issuing it.
Turning finally to Mr. Fraser's proposal to extend the power of deportation from China in the case of Indian subjects, I concur in Mr. Bourne's remarks on the subject. appears to me that the extension of such a power applied exclusively to Indian subjects would constitute an invidious discrimination.
It
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN.
[2418 i—14]