This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
F 560/112/10]
No. 1.
MEMORANDUM.
The Protection of Anglo-Chinese in China.
SYNOPSIS.
98
February 4, 1928.
SECTION 1.
1. Present practice.
2. Fundamental change effected by decision of 1904 to protect Anglo-Chinese of the first generation. 3. Lord Clarendon rules in 1865 that Anglo-Chinese of first generation are not to be protected in
China.
4. Lord Clarendon's instructions misunderstood by Sir R. Alcock.
5. Chief Justice Hornby, misinterpreting Lord Clarendon's despatch, rules on the 1st January, 1867,
that Anglo-Chinese of second generation are entitled to protection in China.
6. Costuine Regulation, the 6th October, 1868.
7. Law Officers' opinion, 1867 :-
(a.) Approves Costume Regulation.
(b.) Inhabitants of Hong Kong at time of cession entitled to protection in China.
(c.) Immigrants and children of immigrants born in Hong Kong not entitled to protection in
China.
8. Mistaken belief grows up that Costume Regulation applied to all Chinese British subjects, and that
it had been agreed to by Chinese Government.
9. Chinese law of transmission of Chinese nationality through any number of generations born abroad
first became known to Foreign Office in 1872.
10. Question of dual nationality of all Anglo-Chinese definitely raised in 1879.
11. Foreign Office hold the view that all Anglo-Chinese owe allegiance to China, and that consequently
none are entitled to protection, the 17th November, 1879.
12. Law Officers advise that no Anglo-Chinese should be protected, and that Costume Regulation
should be withdrawn without any negotiations with China.
13. No action taken on opinion of Law Officers, which was inadvertently suppressed.
14. Confusion caused in China by indiscriminate issue of protection certificates.
15. Foreign Office rule in 1883 that no person born in British territory can be deprived of his rights
as a British subject.
16. Sir N. O'Conor, 1885, explains misconceptions as to Costume Regulation.
17. Foreign Office decide, 1886, to negotiate modus vivendi; period of awaiting opportunity to open
negotiations prolonged from 1886 to 1903.
18. Great confusion prevails during period 1886-1903.
19. Governor of Hong Kong proposes that he should have discretionary power to grant certificates to Anglo-Chinese of first generation domiciled in Hong Kong entitling them to protection in China. 20. Sir E. Satow supports proposal, and advises its adoption without negotiating agreement with China;
Foreign Office concur.
21. Instructions issued in 1904 go far beyond Governor's proposal.
22. Large increase in numbers of Anglo-Chinese receiving protection leads to bitter relations with
Chinese authorities at Canton.
23. Pressure from various quarters to rescind 1904 decision resisted by Colonial Office.
24. Chinese Nationality Law promulgated, 1909; His Majesty's Government decide to negotiate
agreement, but no opportune moment arrives.
25. Dutch negotiate modus vivendi, 1911.
26. Fresh instructions to consuls in 1915 authorise registration of all Anglo-Chinese on production of
satisfactory evidence of birth within the King's dominions.
27. Consul-general at Canton in 1921 again urges abandonment of claim to protect Anglo-Chinese of
the first generation.
28. His Majesty's Government decide that it would weaken their bargaining power to abandon any
claim before negotiations had commenced.
29. Consuls reduced to a state of impotence and humiliation; Foreign Office continue to maintain
full claims at present asserted.
4202 [16827]
B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.