[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
AFFAIRS OF CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[12894]
25%
[April 5,]
C.O.
15433
SECTION 3.
No. 1c
KEGP 7 MAY OC
Sir J. Jordan to Sir Edward Grey.(Received April 5.)
(No. 115.)
Peking, March 15, 1909. Sir,
IN continuation of my despatch No. 41 of the 25th January last, I have now the honour to transmit to you copies of the replies which I have received from the Acting Judge of Ilis Majesty's Supreme Court and the Consuls-General at Tien-tsin, Hankow, and Canton to the despatch in which I asked them for an expression of their views on the proposal put forward by Dr. Kriege for the modification of the system of jurisdiction now exercised in the British and German Concessions in China.
These reports, you will observe, go to show that there is no necessity for altering the present procedure and confirm the opinion held by Mr. J. C. Hanson as communicated to me in your despatch No. 49 of the 16th February.
Dr. Kriege's two principal objections to the present system related to the difficulties which were alleged to be experienced with regard to the enforcement of mortgages and the execution of judgments. The testimony of the Consuls who are working the system demonstrates clearly that the question of mortgages has been attended with no practical difficulties in the past and that the adoption of the German proposal would entail considerable inconvenience to the landholders.
As to the execution of judgments on foreign lot-holders in the British Concessions, there seems to be still less reason for any change, as the most that is required in such cases is that the warrant or summons issued by a foreign Consul should first be backed by the British Consul.
Mr. Hanson was therefore perfectly accurate in saying that neither in the case of mortgages nor of executions had any such difficulties in fact arisen as Dr. Kriege suggested as the grounds for the proposed change of jurisdiction.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. N. JORDAN,
Inclosure 1 in No. 1.
Memorandum on the German Proposal in regard to Jurisdiction over British Subjects in regard to Land and Municipal Regulations on German Concessions.
TWO very distinct subjects are included in the German proposal, and they must be treated separately if confusion of thought is to be avoided, namely: (1) jurisdiction over land; and (2) jurisdiction over foreigners to enforce Municipal Regulations.
1. Jurisdiction over Land.
I understand the German proposal to extend only to Concessions, i.e., areas of Chinese territory leased by the Chinese to a foreign Government and sub-let to foreigners. Here the duty of registering title and transfers must fall on the Power holding the Concession, and it seems that questions as to title charges and easements ought to be decided according to the law of that Power. Chinese subjects cannot hold Crown leases so that China cannot reasonably set up the lea loci. It is contrary to long established principle and highly inconvenient in practice that land should be subject to the personal law: there must be one law for land, and that should be, in the case of Concession lots, the law of the Power holding the Concession. It is true that this has not been so determined judicially by our Courts as far as I know: that the question has never arisen is perhaps due to the fact that nearly all important legal work in China has hitherto been done by English lawyers who follow their own forms, so that the parties are taken to have contemplated their rights being determined by English law. But foreign lawyers are on the increase, and it would be well that the law should be settled. An explicit understanding with Germany, therefore, that
[2243 e-3]
B
re
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.