This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.
Printed for the Cabinet. January 1927.
CONFIDENTIAL.
C.P. 15 (27).
IT may be useful to Ministers to see the following memorandum, prepared in answer to an enquiry from me, as to the rights of British subjects in China (a) in treaty ports and (b) in concessions.
January 18, 1927.
A. C.
THE rights of a British subject residing at a treaty port are much the same whether there is a concession or settlement at the treaty port or not.
These rights are derived from the Treaty of Tien-tsin of 1859. He has the right to lease land (in perpetuity), buy houses and reside anywhere in the treaty port; he may employ Chinese in any lawful capacity without interference or restriction by the Chinese authorities. He himself is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Chinese authorities and is not liable to pay any Chinese taxes, except those expressly authorised by treaty (such as the 5 per cent. import duty) and those which may have been specially agreed to by His Majesty's Government (such as wharfage dues and other taxes for municipal purposes). Chinese living on British premises may not be arrested by the Chinese authorities without prior requisition addressed to the British consul, which means that the British consul must countersign the warrant. Similar protection is extended to Chinese in British employ. If a British subject sues a Chinese he has the right to have a consular assessor sit on the bench with the magistrate and watch the case in the interests of justice, and, lastly, he may travel into the interior if duly provided with a consular passport.
or not.
These rights remain the same, whether there is a concession at the treaty port The only difference is that Chinese police may not function in the concession, and we claim the right to exclude Chinese armed forces also. The British subject may, however, reside in the concession or anywhere else in the treaty port that he likes, the only difference being that the concession area is likely to be well drained and well policed, with good roads and good sanitation.
In the early days this made a substantial difference, but the Chinese have in recent years made great progress in municipal administration, and efficient police, good roads, electric light-all the essentials of a civilised existence--can be enjoyed not only at treaty ports where there are no concessions, but at ports like Hankow and Tien-tsin, in areas outside the concessions which the Chinese have developed on modern lines and also in cities in the interior. Concessions vary from the obviously useless ones, such as that at Chinkiang, to flourishing and well-run municipalities, such as those at Hankow and Tien-tsin. It is substantially correct to say that concessions nowadays are an anachronism, and that it would be better for everybody if the Chinese could take over the responsibility for the administration and policing of these areas. The only difference between a concession and a settle- ment is that in the former the land was leased direct by the Chinese Government to a foreign Government, which then granted titles (such as our Crown leases) to lotholders, whereas in a settlement the Chinese Government merely granted the right to set up a municipal administration, leaving it to the individual foreigner to acquire such land as he needed from the individual native owner.
The above remarks do not apply to Shanghai. The International Settlement at that port is a huge city, with a population of 30,000 foreigners and one and a half million Chinese. It has completely dwarfed the adjacent native city of Shanghai, and it is altogether too big a concern to hand over to a Chinese administration. The annual budget of the Shanghai Municipality is greater than that of most provinces.
J. T. PRATT.
Foreign Office, January 15, 1927.
3781 [15659]
165-14
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.