127
128
Sir C. MacDonald, No. 65. April 19,
1898. (Confiden.
tial Print,}
To Sir C.
MacDonald, No. 5,
Treaty, June 4,
30
him any sum he wished if he would go to the Hsin-Ning magistrate's yamen and demand the liberation of the imprisoned man. These Hong Kong Chinese also informed Le Breton that Yung Wing was a British subject, and upon
his asking for proof of this, his interviewers conferred amongst themselves. It so happens that Le Breton, an old Customs' employee, speaks Cantonese well, and he heard these men discuss how they could borrow so-and-so's naturalisation papers. Mr. Le Breton, seeing that it was not a straightforward case, refused to have anything to do with it. The Hong Kong Chinese next seem to have secured the service of the less scrupulous Raymond.
This shows how easy it is for a Chinese subject to make use of a British subject's papers. I can now see that, in Hong Kong especially, the papers of a bona fide British subject, born in the Colony, may be passed round and do duty several times over, and I do not see how we can avoid the risk of taking up cases with which we strictly should have nothing to do."
11. Lo Cheung Ip, 1898
This man was the illegitimate son of an English father and a Chinese mother, born in Hong Kong, and had been furnished with a certificate of nationality by the Government of Hong Kong.
It was ascertained that the Chinese authorities did not claim such persons as Chinese subjects, and it was. therefore, decided that they could be registered as national born British subjects and that no question of dual Sir C. MacDonald, nationality arose. but no instructions to that effect were issued pending
negotiation of a modus vivendi.
1898.
No. 6, Treaty, September 8, 1898.
To Colonial Office, July 1, 1901.
Governor Sir H. Blake, April 16, 1903. (Confiden- tial Print 8972. No. 1.)
Mr. Paget, May 12, 1004. (Con- fidential Print 8972, No. 17.)
To Sir E. Satow, September 2,1904. (Confidential Print
8972, No. 28.)
[The case of Him-shan at Ichang in the same year was exactly similar. |
12. Goh Min Chin, Foochow, 1901.
This man was born at Penang of parents who were Chinese subjects. His Majesty's consul at Foochow registered him as a British subject, but explained that this had been done through a misapprehension. He was imprisoned by the Chinese authorities and the consul refused to interfere. Lord Lansdowne informed the Colonial Office that His Majesty's Govern- ment could not intervene on his behalf because, by virtue of his parentage, he was a Chinese subject jure sanguinis.
13. Chau Ngau Tsz, Swatow, 1903.
This man was born in Hong Kong in 1867 and carried on business in the Colony with a branch at Swatow. He was furnished with a "British subject certificate which stated that his parents were Chinese subjects, and that he had no claim or right to British protection while within the Empire of China. He was, nevertheless, registered as a British subject at the British consulate at Swatow. Subsequently he was twice robbed of considerable property, but the Chinese authorities paid no attention to the matter, while the consul refused to intervene because he was not entitled to protection.
14. Wee Goh Lye, Swatow, 1904.
This person was registered as a British subject in the British consulate at Bangkok, Siam, where he had been trading for nearly ten years. In 1897 he went to Swatow bearing a passport from the British consul at Bangkok, and was granted a local passport at Swatow by the junior assistant temporarily in charge of the consulate. In 1899 he opened a branch of his business (exchange banker) at Swatow, putting a salaried manager in charge. In 1900 he went to Swatow to consolidate his business," but was refused recognition by the new British consul. In 1903 a sum of 2,000 dollars was stolen from one of his servants in Swatow, but the consul refused to take up the case. His Majesty's Minister urged that Chinese registered as British subjects in Siam should, together with their agents, receive protection in China. The Foreign Office accordingly gave
31
instructions* that Chinese registered as British subjects in Siam, and who had resided in Siam for the three years previously, should receive protection
in China.
15. Kho Boo-an, Swatow, 1904.
No. 11, Treaty, July 8, 1904.
This person was registered as a British subject in the consulate at Sir E. Satow, Swatow. He had purchased from his brothers some paddy fields and a family temple, 15 to 20 miles in the interior, and the parties had gone (Confidential Print direct to the local yamen and obtained the magistrate's seal on the deeds, 8972, No. 21.) the latter being under the impression that the parties were all Chinese. He then brought the deeds to the consul, who registered them in the British consulate land register in 1899. This was quite irregular, because (1) British subjects buying land should obtain the seal of the Chinese authorities only by application through the British consul; (2) British subjects may not own land in the interior. In 1904 he applied to the British consul for assistance in collecting rents due on the property, but was refused. Mr. Willis reported that, during the eighteen months that he had been in charge of the consulate, he had frequently refused similar applications.
16. Chin Yu, Swatow, 1908.
This man was born in China and lived in Swatow most of his life. His Sir J. Jordan, father was born in Mauritius, had been registered as a British subject at No. 101. March 2,
1908. [Treaty, the British consulate at Bangkok, Siam, and had since died. Chin Yu
No. 10446.] applied to be registered as a British subject at Bangkok, and as the consul- general at that port suspected that the only object of the application was to procure British protection in China, he referred the matter to the consul at Swatow. The judge of His Majesty's Supreme Court at Shanghai instructed the cousul that Chin Yu was entitled to be registered in Siam, but should not be accepted and registered as a British subject in China.
[Note. It would seem that if Chin Yu had renewed his registration for three years at Bangkok, he would then have been entitled to registration and protection in China.]
17. Yu Tao Sheng, Yuan Chin Hua and Li Kang, Canton, 1909.
(Confidential Print
Yu Tao Sheng was a Hong Kong Anglo-Chinese of the first generation, Consul-General Yuan Chin Hua ditto of the second generation, and Li Kang a Chinese Jamieson, Decem- naturalised as a British subject in Hong Kong. His Majesty's consul- ber 17, 1909. general issued to them passports for travel in the interior of China 11426, p. 8.) which he forwarded to the Viceroy for sealing. The Viceroy in reply referred to the Law of Nationality, and refused to seal the passports on the ground that all three were British subjects. The consul-general then with- drew the passport of Li Kang and sent in the other two passports again to be sealed. The Viceroy still refused to seal them.
*In giving this decision a memorandum of the previous year by His Majesty's Consul Confidential Print
most 8972, p. 16. at Amoy appears to have been overlooked. Mr. Hausser there pointed out that (Anglo-Chinese), on being granted a certificate of registration, at once set up in business here, and for this reason it has of late years been necessary to exercise greater stringency in admitting their claims to British nationality.
The question to what extent should recognition be accorded to a business carried on in the port by an absentee British Chinese subject also presents some difficulty. In one case the head of a certain firm here went His business back to Singapore in 1897, and has not been registered here since that year.
is, however, still carried on, nominally under power of attorney held by a foreigner, really by an independent Chinese manager, who is notorious for taking up the most dubious Chinese cases. In another instance, a British Chinese subject, having registered himself and established a firm here, promptly went back to Singapore, leaving his business to be conducted by a Chinese agent. There have also been cases in which, on the death of the principal, his widow has carried on the business under Chinese auspices for several years. The death was never reported, and the facts were only accidentally brought to light long afterwards, when some trouble had occurred. The malpractice such a state of things inevitably gave rise to need not be enlarged upon; how they are to be prevented is not so obvious. So far as possible I have invariably insisted that no business shall be left in charge of anyone who is not a British subject, and in some cases this has proved sufficient to deter the principal himself from leaving the port. The requirement being easily avoided, it has, in other cases, proved only very partially effective."