670
L
2
doubt is removed by the ruling of His Majesty's Government, the German authorities may well hesitate, out of regard solely for the prosperity of their Concession, to maintain conditions which amount to an exclusion of British lot-holders and tenants, especially if other Powers should declare their views to be identical with the British.
I understand that the local Representatives of Italy and the United States at least have referred this same question to their superiors.
Should those conditions nevertheless be persisted in, which may happen if, as I believe, their authorities are averse from Germans residing and trading exclusively outside their own Concession, my opinion is that, since it is impracticable to revert to the original reservation of our Concession for our own nationals or to limit the area occupied by British missions and their members, that would not be a sufficient reason for narrowing the market for a certain number of British Concession lots and so depressing their value for revenue purposes.
The proviso added to our original form of title-deed has proved adequate to insure due observance of our Regulations and bye-laws; as regards extension and a considerable proportion of Concession lots His Majesty's Legation is in a position to prevent undesirable transfers, while the strictest conditions would not keep out aliens or even Chinese, whose interest in acquiring Concession property was keen enough to make them risk putting themselves at the mercy of undisclosed trustees or agents.
British subjects who do not but desire to own property in our Concession will protest whenever a German receives better treatment at our hands than his authorities mete out to Britons; but it is always open to such objectors to exclude Germans by the simple process of outbidding them when such property comes into the market. Lot-owners, I may add, consistently object to any restriction whatever on freedom of transfer, sublease, or demise.
Should inquiry be made as to our probable action in cases similar to that of Herr Newel, I ask leave to reply that His Majesty's Government have not as yet laid down any general rule on the subject.
I have, &c.
(In the absence of His Britannic Majesty's Consul-General),
(Signed)
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
List showing which Lots in the Concession still held under Original Form of Title-deed.
(a.) LOTS in British Concession, Hankow, still held under original form of title-deed:--
2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24, 29, 30, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 42, 43, 46, 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 57, 62, 63, 64, 66, 67, 68, 69, 73, 74.
(b.) Lots transferrable to aliens without Legation sanction:--
5, 9, 16, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31a, 31b, 32, 34, 44, 45, 47, 58, 59, 60, 61, 65, 70, 72.
(c.) Lots requiring Legation sanction previous to transfer to other than a British subject-
1, 10A, 10B, 40, 41, 50, 55, 71.
Inclosure 3 in No. 1.
Sir H. Wilkinson to Consul-General Fraser.
(No. 2.) Sir,
Supreme Court, Shanghae, February 2, 1905.
I HAVE to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 9th ultimo, in which you ask my opinion as to whether Consul Caine's notification of the 29th August, 1871, under which Concession leases might be handed in for modification, is still operative, so as to compel you at the request of the present holder of any such lease to add an indorsement admitting of a legal tenancy by, and a transfer to, the subject of any Power having a Treaty with China, or without leases the holders of which did not take advantage of that notification, cannot be modified except by special permission of His Majesty's Minister or His Majesty's Government.
You inform me that an application made in July last to transfer Lot 1 from George McBain's executors to the Nippon Yusen Kaisha was referred to the Legation, and is still under consideration.
Under these circumstances it is not desirable that I should express any opinion. The question has, I should think, been probably referred to His Majesty's Secretary of State, who will, if considered desirable, take the opinion of the Law Officers on the subject.
cancelled.
With regard to the other question you put to me, I have no hesitation in answering.
You asked me whether if lots, the leases of which bear the 1871 indorsement, pass again into British hands the additional clause can legally be modified or
3
In the absence of legislation, which I should certainly not advise, or of a mutual agreement, the additional clause can neither be cancelled nor modified, and it would be your duty to register any transfer which came within the terms of that clause.
I am,
H. S. WILKINSON.
(Signed)
Inclosure 4 in No. 1.
&c.
Acting Consul-General Ker to Sir J. Jordan.
(No. 46.) Sir,
Tien-tsin, September 1, 1908.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 30 of the 14th ultimo, in which I am instructed to give my opinion on the question whether, if the impossible conditions at present imposed on the purchase by British subjects of lots in a German Concession are adhered to, it would be desirable that we should retaliate by refusing sanction to German purchases in British Concessions.
In order to answer this question, so far as Tien-tsin is concerned, it is necessary to consider the positions of the British and German Concessions.
The British Concession is the focus of the whole foreign trade of the port. It owes its superior position partly to the fact that it is the nearest point to the native city which steamers can reach, and partly to what may be described as the policy of the open door, no inconsiderable part of its revenue, for instance, being derived from the fact that many leading German firms have found it possible and advantageous to settle in it. In view of the natural advantages of the British Concession and of existing vested interests, it may be fairly assumed that the interests of the Concession are synonymous with those of British trade in general.
The German Concession is situated farther down the river, and is still comparatively new and undeveloped. A natural development of this Concession, due to general expansion of trade, could not possibly be detrimental to any one; but an artificial development, caused by diverting commercial enterprise from its natural location, could only be effected at the expense of the British Concession, and therefore of British trade. And there are not wanting signs that it is the policy of the German authorities to force on the development of their Concession even at a present pecuniary sacrifice.
With the above considerations in view, I am of opinion that settled policy of retaliation, in case the German Government adheres to its present practice, is not desirable in British interests. Such a policy, excluding Germans from the British Concessions, would only have the effect of driving them to their own Concession, and thus accelerating the artificial development of the German Concession at the expense of the British Concession.
If the effect of the German rule is to exclude British subjects from the German Concession, some hardship may possibly be inflicted on British individuals, but I hardly see how British interests in general would be injured. On the other hand, if British subjects are excluded from the German Concession the development of the latter would be seriously retarded. To this aspect of the question I believe the local German Consular authorities are fully alive-indeed, I am confidentially informed that in some cases where an alien has acquired land in the German Concession, instructions from Berlin have been disregarded, and the approval of the foreign Consul to the alien's