[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
143
January 9, 1928.
SECTION 3.
30014/27
No.39
[F 112/112/10]
No. 1.
Sir M. Lampson to Sir Austen Chamberlain.—(Received January 9, 1928.)
(No. 2121.) Sir,
Peking, November 23, 1927.
I HAVE received from his Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong copy of his despatch of the 1st October to the Secretary of State for the Colonies on the subject of the protection in China of British subjects of Chinese race.
2. I am unable to associate myself with the terms of that despatch, but I do not propose to examine it in detail as I have since had an opportunity of discussing the question with Sir Cecil Clementi during his recent visit to Peking, when it was found possible to agree on the best action to be taken as a first step in endeavouring to reach some solution of this question.
3. A note of the discussion is enclosed herewith, which is self-explanatory, and it only remains to add that I am sending the necessary instructions to His Majesty's consul-general at Canton in a despatch, copy of which is also enclosed herewith.
I have, &c.
MILES LAMPSON.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Note of the Discussion on the Question of the Protection of British Subjects of Chinese Descent, November 17, 1927 (arising out of Hong Kong Despatch No. 88 of October 5).
Sir Cecil Clementi.
Sir Miles Lampson.
Mr. E. Teichman.
Present:
橄
Mr. J. W. O. Davidson.
Mr. J. C. Sterndale Bennett.
Sir Cecil Clementi said that his primary concern with this question was in its domestic aspect. Questions of extradition and banishment depended on whether those concerned were British subjects or not, and the Hong Kong Government had therefore to decide for themselves which persons were to be recognised as British subjects in Hong Kong. He personally was not in favour of considering all first generation Chinese as such, and he had accordingly put forward the proposal regarding renunciation of Chinese nationality contained in Hong Kong despatch No. 88 because his Chinese advisers were of opinion that very few Hong Kong Chinese of the first generation would renounce. This would automatically restrict the number of recognised British subjects. Sir Cecil further explained that this matter was bound up with the question of the use of the British flag on Chinese inland waters, because the Hong Kong Government wished by legislation to restrict the right of such use of the flag in the case of companies on the Hong Kong register to vessels really owned by British subjects.
Sir Miles Lampson and his advisers pointed out that any Chinese Government would hardly be likely, having regard to the previous history of thi question, to recognise any domestic arrangement of Hong Kong's. The Chin nationality law provided for renunciation of Chinese nationality only throu certificates issued by the Ministry of the Interior. It was admitted that these cert cates were apparently very rarely issued, and, in any case, a certificate issued the Peking Ministry of the Interior would not be recognised in the South. Sir C Clementi said that there would in the last resort have to be two renunciations, in Hong Kong and one in China. What he was anxious to see was some working arrangement come to without the delay of waiting for some organised Government in China to emerge. It would have to be an arrangement that the Canton authorities would recognise as that was the place with which Hong Kong was most concerned, but before any suggestions could even be put forward it was necessary for us to decide in our own minds whom we wanted to recognise as British subjects. After further
[342 i-3]