PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
TIT
Reference :---
C.O. 882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
PUBLIC
RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
322
officer named Mok Shin-chek has been sent with several hundreds of soldiers to cope with the bad characters, who are about to raise the standard of rebellion.
Several days ago thirty prisoners made their escape from the prison of the district of Kwai-sin. Twenty of them have been recaptured, but the rest have made good their escape. The superintendent of the gaol has been ordered to go to Canton for trial on account of his neglect of duty.
On the 10th instant a junk heavily laden with silk, valued at about four thousand dollars, was despatched from Patlai for Canton. When she was sailing near Samshui, on the West River, nine boats carrying robbers rowed up to her and carried away all the silk from her. The robbers did not molest the passengers nor plunder their luggage.
(16).
PRÉCIS.
July 20, 1899.
CHEUNG HOx petitions on behalf of his uncle, Cheung Chi-lap, a resident in Sham Chun, who was arrested by the military authorities and forced to pay a fine of $500, for which no receipt was given, nor was his uncle released up to the time when petitioner left the country to present this petition in Hong Kong. He is not aware whether he is still in custody or not.
Petitioner submits that his uncle, being a law abiding subject and having sought protection from the British, would not now break the laws. When they (the British) came to Sham Chun he used every effort to quiet the people and prevent trouble.
The telegraph wires at Tung Ping Kuk having been cut by rowdies, the authorities ordered his arrest to his surprise and ignorant of any cause. The soldiers rushed into his house, burned up all his furniture, arrested him and delivered him over to the Commandant at Sheung Po Camp to be kept in custody, a demand being made that $500 should be paid in an hour's time as damages.
His uncle's family, thrown into consternation to make up the amount, borrowed money and pledged their servant girls. Petitioner paid it into camp at 3 p.m., on the 13th of July; his uncle was taken through all the streets to serve as a warning to the public. Had he been guilty, he would deserve punishment, and petitioner would not state his case for him; but if he has been falsely accused by certain persons, having paid the fine, petitioner fears he (his uncle) runs a great risk of being implicated in other troubles.
He is compelled to represent this matter to the authorities, as his uncle, without any cause, is brought into trouble and his family ruined. He requests Your Honour will represent this case to His Excellency the Governor, in order that an investigation may be made, the truth disclosed, and his uncle released.
To the Honourable C. S. P. for transmission to His Excellency the Governor.
22256.
No. 234.
GOVERNOR SIR H. A. BLAKE to MR. CHAMBERLAIN.
(Received August 21, 1899.)
[Answered by No. 255a.]
(No. 196.) SIR,
Government House, Hong Kong, July 21, 1899. I have the honour to transmit for your consideration a copy of a letter from the Acting Registrar General which raises the question as to whether the inhabitants of the new territory are British subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such.
2. I also enclose a copy of a memorandum on the subject by the Acting Chief
Justice, and a copy of a Minute by the Acting Attorney-General.
3. As advised by the Acting Chief Justice and Acting Attorney-General, I have the honour to request that the points raised may be submitted for the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown.
I have, &c.,
HENRY A. BLAKE,
Governor, &c.
SIB,
323
Enclosure 1 in No. 234.
Registrar General's Office, Hong Kong, July 3, 1899.
I HAVE the honour to report that one Cheung Ting Shung, of Sai Kung, in the New Territory, has inquired of me whether he is entitled, as a British subject to enter British Columbia without payment of the entrance fee required from Chinese other than British subjects, and I shall be glad to receive instructions as to whether I may grant him the requisite certificate.
The Honourable
The Colonial Secretary.
YOUR EXCELLENCY,
I have, &c.,
A. W. BREWIN, Acting Registrar General.
Enclosure 2 in No. 234. Memorandum by the Acting Chief Justice.
A British subject is one who owes permanent allegiance to the Crown 18 distinguished from an alien owing only temporary allegiance while within the British dominions. British subjects are either natural born or naturalised British subjects. It seems clear that Chinese. born in the new territory after that territory became a part of this Colony would be natural born British subjects. But a consideration of the four forms of British subject certificate granted to Anglo Chinese, approved by Lord Salisbury (see despatch of Secretary of State to the Governor, 27th June, 1892) shows care must be exercised in granting them.
(1) Form A 100, (2) Form A 100 (a), (3) Form A 100 (b), and (4) Form A 100 (c), specify that the person to whom the certificate is granted is a British subject born in the Colony, but each Form, respectively, specifies the status of the parents, e.g.:
(1) Of Chinese parents, his father having been previously naturalized.
(2). Of parents of Chinese origin who were themselves British subjects, having been both likewise born in this Colony.
(3) Of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor of China.
(4) Of Chinese parents, who were resident in this Colony at the time of the Cession thereof to Her Majesty.
In the case (3) where the Chinese parents are subjects of the Emperor of China, the certificate specially states in a note "This Certificate does not confer on the said while within the Empire of China any claim or right to British protection, &c., &c.”
It seems to me that, as regards Chinese born in the new territory after it became part of the Colony, the same forms would apply substantially as in the case of those born in Hong Kong proper, except as regards Form A 100 (c), where I presume the words "at the time of the cession thereof " would refer to the time of the cession of the new territory. There, however, remains the question, does the cession of the new territory and its incorporation with this Colony act as a naturalisation of all the Chinese then resident, so as to confer upon them all the rights of duly naturalised British subjects, as well as the duties and obligations of such subjects! Now, "when treaties ceding territory have been made in modern times, it has been usual to insert a clause securing liberty to inhabitants of the territory ceded to keep their nationality of origin." (Hall, International Law, 2nd edition, p. 527.) There is no such clause in the Convention of 9th June, 1808. While, therefore, it is clear that Chinese subjects who remain in the new territory are amenable to the British law in force in that territory, it is not so clear to my mind that the taking over of the territory turns every Chinaman therein, instantly, into a British subject, for all purposes.
Some might prefer to retain their allegiance to the Emperor of China, and to emigrate beyond the new territory.
As regards the application of Cheung Ting Shung, I do not think his claim to enter British Columbia without payment would be admitted by that Colony,
The question is one which, I think, is proper to be referred to the authorities in England, and I should not advise recognizing all the residents in the new territory as British subjects, for all purposes, (treating them, indeed, as if born in this Colony), without instructions from the Secretary of State.
July 17, 1899.
438
W. MEIGH GOODMAN,
Acting Chief Justice.
281