Sir J. Jordan,
No. 10, January 5, 1916. (21583.)
Consul General Jamieson, No. 4, September 7,1021. [T 12946/2284/ 310.3
Sir R. Macleay,
No. 418. July 30, 1923. [T 9601/ 4182/350.]
34
23. Mr. Yang, Amoy, 1915.
Mr. Yang and his Chinese relations purchased land in the interior for the erection of an ancestral hall. Mr. Yang was a registered British subject, and his name did not appear on the title deeds. Certain Chinese brought a suit for attachment of the land, basing their claim on a mortgage twenty-nine years old, unaccompanied by possession of the original deeds. His Majesty's consul did not interfere in the "case beyond communicating the facts to the magistrate and asking him to do justice.' On reference to His Majesty's Minister he was instructed to decline under any circum- stances to support a claim by an Anglo-Chinese to own land in the interior.
24. Chen Tso Heng, Canton, 1921.
Chen Tso Heng, a Hong Kong Anglo-Chinese of the second generation, in 1911 applied for and received a British-born subject certificate, and in the same year and every succeeding year was registered as a British subject in His Majesty's consulate-general at Canton. In 1913 the Governor- General of Kwangtung instituted extradition proceedings in Hong Kong against one Chung Hsiu-nan on a charge of embezzling provincial funds. The charge was withdrawn on payment by Chung of 110,000 dollars. Chung, who was a relative of General Chen Chiung Ming, subsequently occupied high military office in Kwangtung, but he continued to harbour a grudge against Chen Tso Heng in connection with the extradition case. In 1921 Chen Tso Heng visited Canton, and was seized and imprisoned at the instance of Chung Hsiu-nan on a trumped-up charge of having acted as a spy in Hong Kong for a rival general some years before. He was in imminent danger of being shot, but His Majesty's consul-general interfered energetically on his behalf, and his life was only saved by the threat that the full facts would be published in the Hong Kong newspapers. He was released after three weeks imprisonment, but the Chinese authorities refused to acknowledge that he was a British subject on the ground that he had not taken steps to divest himself of his Chinese nationality in accordance with the Revised Nationality Law of 1914. The consul-general pointed out that Chen Tso Heng had been set at liberty not because he was a British subject, but solely because there was no evidence against him. Had that not been the case he could not have saved him from trial by a Chinese military tribunal and subsequent execution.
25. Yeoh Hong Pin, Foochow, 1921–23.
.
Yeoh Hong Pin received a Colonial Certificate of Naturalisation, dated the 6th April. 1921, and a Singapore passport in which he was described as a naturalised British subject. He resided from time to time in Foochow The standing rule which had not been altered by the instructions of 1904 was that a naturalised British subject of Chinese descent was not entitled to be registered as a British subject in China. His Majesty's consul at Foochow, however, relying on section 17 of Chapter XXVII of the "General Consular Instructions,' but ignoring section 25 of Chapter XXV, registered him in the years 1921, 1922 and 1923, as a British protected person. He applied to His Majesty's To Colonial Office, consul to register in the consulate land register certain lots of land which he had bought prior to his naturalisation, and in March 1923 he established a firm at Foochow His Majesty's consul then reported the case to His Majesty's Minister at Peking, who, with the approval of the Foreign Office, issued instructions that naturalised British subjects of Chinese descent should not be registered in China as British subjects unless they could show that they had divested themselves of their Chinese nationality with the To Sir R. Macleay, consent of the Chinese Government; and, in general, that where the General Consular Instructions conflicted with the 1904 instructions the latter should be strictly followed in so far as the registration and protection of British subjects of Chinese origin in China was concerned.
October 8, 1923.
[T 9601/4182/ 250:1
Colonial Office,
October 26, 1923. IT 11174/4182/ 350.]
No. 876, Novem- ber 14, 1923.
IT 11174/4182/
350.]
«
26. Tan Lu Tek, Amoy, 1911–22.
Tan Lu Tek was born at Amoy in 1904; his father, a registered Chinese British subject, died in 1907; letters of administration were
35
granted to the attorney of the widow, who, however, ceased registering as a British subject. In 1911 the widow applied to register the birth of Consul Sundius, Tan Lu Tek, then over seven years of age. The special sanction of the No. 5, October 20, Secretary of State was sought and granted on condition that the widow 598/310 of 1922.] now registered and continued to register as a British subject.
In 1922 His Majesty's consul at Amoy, referring to the case of Tan Lu Tek, drew attention to the inequity of registering such youths as British subjects, thereby withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Chinese authorities a person of pure Chinese race, sympathies, habits and instincts, whose attachment to the British Empire is based solely on a slender legal technicality, and whose British status is, in the vast majority of cases, sedulously concealed except when some advantage is to be gained by its display.
1911. [T 12454/
It was decided that the sons born in China of Chinese British subjects Consul Eastes, born in His Majesty's Dominions were not entitled to be registered as No. 36, July 8, British subjects; and, further. that the births of such persons, who, when 1911. adults, were not entitled to protection, should not be registered at the No. 509, August
British consulate.
27. Cheah Ngoh Oh, Amoy, 1922.
Mr. Clive,
10, 1911. [T 11321/598/ 310.7
Consul Eastes, August 28, 1922,
1922.
Mr. Alston to Consul Eastes, September 20,
[T 12454/ 593/310.] Colonial Office, May 9, 1923.
To Sir R. Macleay,
No. 346, May 16,
1928. [T 5114/
4182/850.1
To Sir R. Macleay,
No. 793, October
6, 1928. [T 9895/ 1182/950.]
Cheah Ngoh Oh was born in Penang in 1862, returned to China in Amoy, No. 62. 1918, and settled down in his ancestral home in the interior near Amoy, October 26, 1922. where he owned landed property. Two years later the local villagers elected [14694/51985/
310.] him to the position of village headman. He also received from the district magistrate, with the approval of the Taoyin and Military and Civil Governors of the Province of Fokien, an appointment as captain of the local train band, a uniformed force, armed with rifles and ammunition supplied by the magistrate. In 1922 the villagers complained to the local officials that he had on several occasions caused trouble, instancing. in particular, his establishment of a field tax office, which he administered for his private gain. They pointed out that he was a British subject and described himself as such in the sign over the fruit shop which he had opened in Amoy. Cheah Ngoh Oh could not write or speak a word of English.
28. Yeap Seng Koon, Swatow', 1924.
Yeap Seng Koon's father and grandfather were both born in Penang; Swatow, No. 8, he himself was born in Chinese territory (Formosa) where his father was May 26, 1921. employed in the British consulate. He was registered as a British subject [6731/8260
378.] in the British consulate at Tamsui, Formosa (now Japanese territory), in 1906; as a British protected person at the British consulate, Amoy, in 1913, as a British protected person at the British consulate, Swatow, 1914 to 1920; and as a British subject in 1921. The consul refused to renew his registration subsequently to 1921, on the ground that he had not been born on British soil. He continued, however, to pass himself off as a British subject, and lent his name to the "Tourist Hotel," in order that the hotel, which was really Chinese owned, might pass itself off as a British concern and so escape Chinese taxation. He bore an indifferent character, and under cover of practising as a dentist engaged in an illicit traffic in opium.
55