2
3
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Consul-General Fraser to Sir J, Jordan.
(No. 70.)
Hankow, November 21, 1906. Sir,
I HAVE the honour to forward a copy of a letter addressed to me by the Municipal Council of the British Concession at Hankow regarding the employment of natives of India in their police force.
At the beginning of this year the Council had in its employment three Indian sergeants and thirty-four Indian constables; and the force tends to increase.
The men have hitherto been recruited from Hong Kong, Shanghae, or locally under the agreement of which copy is inclosed; but the attractions of service in Manchuria and California as watchmen on high pay lead to constant resignations, even though
and
allowance are forfeited. thereby deferred pay passage
The German Concession here also employs Indian police recruited locally, and a considerable number serve private firms and banks, including a few Chinese institutions,
as watchmen.
Every effort is made to have all these natives registered, and a list of such registra- tions and the occupations of the persons registering is inclosed. Complete registration is, however, impossible, in view of the facilities for their coming and going from and to Shanghae and other places. Passports are not issued to Indian natives, but every now and then individuals are reported to be wandering in the interior.
The Indians employed as watchmen include a good many men of indifferent character whose drinking and money-lending disputes bring them before me judicially. Most of these mon live outside this Concession, and it is only when their employers, the German Municipal Council for foreign firms, send them to my Court for some offence that they come under my notice. Even then they rarely come within the deportation provisions of the Order in Council.
In view of the openings for employment here other than the British Municipal Police Force, I submit that even the new Notifications may not prevent breaches of contract on the part of Indian subjects engaged for service in the local police or their being tempted away by other than British subjects.
The remedy would seem to lie in an extension of the power of deportation from China in the case of Indian subjects employed in China.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
E. H. FRASER.
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
British Municipal Council, Hankow, to Consul-General Fraser.
Sir,
Hankow, November 17, 1907. I HAVE the honour to bring to your notice the inclosed printed Notifications having reference to the employment of natives of India being British subjects as police in China.
The first paragraph of the Notice issued by His Majesty's Consul-General, Shanghae (inclosure marked A), under date of the 31st October, 1906, enjoins that the local recruitment of natives of India by Colonial and Municipal Administrations in their own Settlements shall cease entirely from the 1st January, 1907, which offer, I presume, will apply to Hankow. Again, in paragraph 3 of the same notice, the order as to the agreement of service is applied to all men enlisted for the police in China, but the instructions as to applications for employment and the communication of conditions of service in paragraphs 2 and 3 refer only to Hong Kong, Shanghae, and Tien-tsin.
The inclosure marked (B) is a copy of the King's Regulation providing for the order and good government of the Municipal Police in Shanghae, No. 1 of 1906, published by His Majesty's Minister on the 12th October, 1906.
It appears to my Council that, in order to carry out these injunctions as well as to stablish satisfactory relations between the Indian constables and the Council, it is necessary that both of these Notifications should be extended so as to apply in all
respects to Hankow, and I have therefore the honour to request that you will forward an application to that effect to His Majesty's Minister.
Sir,
I have, &c.
(Signed)
HUGH E. RAMSAY, Chairman.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Acting Judge Bourne to Sir J. Jordan.
Supreme Court, Shanghae, December 31, 1906. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 4th instant on the subject of the employment of natives of India in the police force of the British Concession at Hankow, asking an opinion (a) as to the expediency of extending the King's Regulations No. 1 of 1906 so as to include other municipalities in China than Shanghae, and (b) as to the expediency of extending the power of deportation of Indian subjects from China.
In regard to (a), I can see no legal objection to extending the Regulations as proposed, if it is thought necessary. The opinion is held here that Sikbs make cheap and efficient police for the rougher work of keeping order among the Chinese in the streets, and that they have done very well in cases of riot. Certainly, if they are to be employed they ought to be under better discipline than can be based upon an ordinary contract of civil employment. The Consuls must understand, of course, that the Regulations are to be enforced by His Majesty's Courts, and not otherwise.
It is not quite clear from Mr. Fraser's despatch whether he proposes to put the Indians employed by the German and other foreign municipalities under the Regula- tions. This is a matter of policy. But if His Majesty's Government decides to do so, I can see no legal objection, except that it ought to be stipulated that no act shall be deemed an offence that would not be criminal by British law. This is provided by the Order in Council; but it would, I think, be well to call attention to the principle by a proviso in the Regulations. I should point out that the Regulations extend not only to Indians, but to all British subjects serving in the Shanghae Municipal Police Force; and I suppose the now Regulations would be on the same lines.
In regard to (b), Mr. Fraser's proposal to extend the power of deportation from China in the case of Indian subjects, presents several difficulties. A fatal one seems to me to be that it would weaken the self-reliance of the Indian community, and that any Indian wanting to return to India would contrive to throw himself on the Consul and appear to have no money. As things are now, the Indian community has to deal with its own poor and bury its own dead, and this is as it should be. Although by the last census, dated October 1905, there were in Shanghae 568 Indians, exclusive of the French Settlement, the Supreme Court and Consulate-General hear practically nothing of them except in cases of ordinary litigation and crime. The criminal law seems elastic enough with a little ingenuity to deal with undesirable persons, e.g., a man can be imprisoned for three months with hard labour for being up country without a passport, and such a prisoner could be transferred to the gaol in Shanghae, where hard labour can be more conveniently given. If the Consul is in doubt how to deal with a particular case, he can apply to the Court for advice. I quite agree with Mr. Fraser that our condition in China with regard to Indians is not all that could be wished, because a large Indian population was contemplated neither by the Treaties nor by the Order in Council, but the remedy would rather seem to lie in restrictions imposed in India itself.
In regard to the remark of the Hankow Municipal Council that they presume the Notification of the 31st October, 1906, will apply to recruiting of Indians locally by them, it would seem that this Notification can have no such effect except by their consent of Article 6 of the Order in Council 1904. I suppose that an arrangement has been made by agreement with the Municipal Councils of Shanghae and Tien-tsin, and that as regards Hankow and other ports such an arrangement is contemplated.
I have, &c.
(Signed) S. F. A. BOURNE, Acting Judge.
146