115
Sir B. Alston,
No. 374, June 27, 1922, IT 9093/ 598/810.]
Sir B. Alston,
No. 509, August
10, 1922.
18
been the exact opposite. The Governor of Singapore believed that Anglo- Chinese of the first generation had been continuously protected in China for the past forty years in accordance with the principle laid down by the Foreign Office and the Colonial Office in 1883 (see paragraph 15), that "it was not possible that any person born in British territory should be deprived of the rights of a British subject." Though the Colonial Govern- ments concerned were strongly opposed to any abandonment of what they regarded as the just rights of British subjects, the Foreign Office and the Legation, fully conscious of the magnitude of the evil, were in sympathy with Mr. Jamieson's proposal that Anglo-Chinese of the first generation should no longer receive protection in China. There was no reason why the decision to protect them should not have been reversed in the same way that it was first enforced in 1904, namely, of our own initiative, without reference to the Government of China. Unfortunately, the facts were not To Sir B. Alston, known, and, accordingly, it was decided that the numbers of Anglo-Chinese to be protected in China could only be reduced by agreement with China, and that, pending the opening of negotiations on the subject, it would only weaken our bargaining power if we failed to maintain the full claim of His Majesty's Government to protect all the classes of Anglo-Chinese as set out in "Major's Compendium." The proposal which had held the field since 1910 (see paragraph 24), that a joint Sino-British Commission should be appointed to examine the question and make recommendations to their respective Governments, was now abandoned, and it was decided that the negotiations should be entrusted to the Legation alone. But the moment was still held to be unpropitious for the opening of negotiations with the Chinese Government."
[T 11321/593/ 310.]
No, -, Tel., December 18,
1922. IT 11321/
598/810.]
Mr. Clive, No. 652,
October 24, 1922.
[T 14169/593/90.] To Mr. Clive, No. 30. January 10, 1923.
[T 14169/598/
310.]
Consul Jamieson, August 14, 1922. [T 11807/598/ 310.1
Sir R. Mac'ruy. No. 370, June 15,
1924. (T 6817/ 3260/378.]
To Colonial Office, September 13.
1924. T 6817/ $280/378.]
Colonial Office, October 6. 1924.
To Sir R. Macleay, No. 30. January
15, 1925.
IT 10070/3260/
378.]
Mr. Palairet, No. 54, Tel.. March 24, 1925. [T 3117/ 2265/378.]
29. The policy of maintaining our bargaining power did not prove a success, and the situation continued steadily to deteriorate.
In 1922 the consul-general at Canton pointed out that it was of little use to promise to Chinese British-born subjects protection in theory, if it was impossible to accord it to them in practice. He had been reduced to the expedient of informing Hong Kong British Chinese that, though they were entitled to his protection it was beyond his power to protect them, and he urged that existing procedure be modified in order to do away with the humiliation of having to make such a confession of impotence. In all the disputes which occurred from now onward, the dominant note of the situation was always the impotence to which consular officers were reduced and the humiliation to which they were subjected, and it made no difference whether the Chinese whom it was sought to protect was a British subject of the first or of any later generation. All alike, when they returned to China, were, in fact, by habit, sympathies, and mode of life, indistinguish- able from the native population and were claimed as Chinese subjects by the Chinese authorities (see, for example, cases of Yeap Seng Koon, the brothers Nah, and Low Peng Kiah, Appendix I. Nos. 28, 29 and 31). In 1924 His Majesty's Minister advised that we should abandon the attitude of not abating our claims pending negotiations; he deprecated the reluctance of the Colonial authorities to agree to Mr. Jamieson's proposal to abandon the claim to protect Anglo-Chinese of the first generation, urged that it was useless to continue waiting for the establishment of a stable and unified Government in China, and proposed that no further time should be lost in attempting to negotiate a modus vivendi on the lines of the Sino- Dutch arrangement of 1911. The Foreign Office, however, did not accept this suggestion. They considered that Chinese of the first generation should be registered and protected if they took the oath of allegiance on attaining their majority, and Sir R. Macleay was instructed to open negotiations on that basis whenever he saw fit, but, in the meantime, to maintain in full the claims at present asserted.
30. On receipt of these instructions Mr. Palairet immediately tele- graphed that, if negotiations were to have any prospect of success it was essential to adopt the proposals made by Sir J. Jamieson in 1921 (see
*The issue of the General Consular Instructions in 1921 caused some confusion in China, which it is unnecessary to go into here. The rulings which arose out of that confusion have been summarised in paragraph 1.
19
116
Mr. Palaire, No.
paragraph 27) and abandon ab initio the claim to protect Anglo-Chinese of the first generation. After consultation with the Colonial Office, however, the Foreign Office adhered to the view that it was essential to maintain our bargaining powers, and further, that it was inadvisable to do anything that might adversely affect the loyalty of the Straits-born Chinese. The Chargé Affaires was accordingly again instructed to put forward a claim to protect Anglo-Chinese of the first generation. In the To Mr. Palairet, meantime, however, Mr. Palairet had already attempted to open negotia- No. 74, Tel., May tions on the subject by communicating to the Chinese Foreign Office a draft 19, 1825,
[T 4908/2265/ 378.] exchange of notes, on the lines of the Dutch modus vivendi, in which protection of Anglo-Chinese was to be limited to those of the second generation. On receipt of the further instructions above referred to he 278, April 25,
maintenance by His 1925. [T 5905/ suspended action, but pointed out once more that the Majesty's consuls of claims which are rejected with contumely by the local 2265/378.] Chinese authorities is not only of no assistance to the individual Anglo- Chinese concerned, but also reacts most unfavourably on other business, and does grave injury to the prestige of His Majesty's consuls in South China." All attempts to deal with the question were now definitely abandoned, and His Majesty's consuls were instructed to maintain the status quo as regards registration and protection, but they were advised to warn any Anglo- Chinese who chose to visit or reside in China that, though we still claimed the right to protect them, they must be prepared to submit to Chinese jurisdiction when outside the limits of the extra-territorialised areas under foreign control.' The confession of impotence, against which His Majesty's consul-general at Canton had chafed in 1922 (see paragraph 29), was thus now made of general application.
י.
31. Difficulties of a similar nature had arisen in the Province of Sinkiang, or Chinese Turkestan, at about the same time that His Majesty's consul-general at Canton had been impelled to bring forward the proposals described in paragraph 27. Prior to 1912 the protection of British Indian subjects in Turkestan had caused no difficulties. Sir Halliday Macartney, an officer appointed by and responsible to the Indian Government. was consul-general at Kashgar, and the policy of the Indian Government was to extend recognition and protection to traders and the like, but not to emigrants, who had, in fact, severed all connection with British India. Subject to this proviso, the children of British Indians born in Sinkiang were recognised as British subjects, but the grandchildren were regarded as Chinese subjects. This principle was adopted in the China (Kashgar) Order in Council, 1920,"article 3. which defines a British subject as including a British protected person and the children, but not the grand- children, of such persons born within the limits of the order. During the years 1912 to 1914 the Russians fortified themselves at Kashgar with a garrison of 600 or 700 troops, and registered large numbers of the native inhabitants as Russian subjects. The Indian Government decided, also, to embark on a forward policy, and large numbers of persons who, or whose fathers, had originally come from India, were accordingly registered as British subjects. As foreign nationality carried with it immunity from Chinese control and Chinese taxation, there was no lack of candidates for British registration. Many of these British subjects, however, were colonists owning and farming their own land, and were quite indistinguish- able from the native population. Others came from the frontier districts of India, where they had never been under any British administration. Indian head men, known as Aksakals, acted as consular agents at various centres, but as a result of the forward policy, there were scattered all over Sinkiang little communities of British subjects, who were a law unto them- selves and under no effective control, and in course of time serious abuses grew up.
In the years 1917-18 came the Russian débâcle and the disappearance of Russian influence in Sinkiang. culminating with the closing of their consulate at Kashgar in 1920. The Chinese authorities joyfully proceeded to renaturalise, forcibly or otherwise, all the individuals who had become Russian subjects, and they then turned their attention to the large number of persons, equally indistinguishable from the native population, who had been registered as British subjects. They had acquiesced in the original regis-
[16827]
D 2