23
Governor Sir A.
Young, September 25, 1912. (Confi-
dential Print 11426, No. 18.) To Colonial Office, December 20,
tial Print 11426, No. 19.) Governor Sir L. N.
Guillemard, April
4
instructions were cancelled, but nothing was said about naturalisation. Thereafter, it was only by a process of historical research that a consul could ascertain that such individuals should not be registered or protected. In consequence, cases occasionally occurred where colonially naturalised Anglo-Chinese were registered as British subjects or as British protected persons.* A similar case having occurred in Foochow in 1921 (see Appendix I, No. 25, case of Yeoh Hong Pin), it was again definitely laid down that naturalised British subjects of Chinese descent should not be registered unless they could show that they had divested themselves of their Chinese nationality with the consent of the Chinese Government.
(B.)-Natives of the Malay States.
A Foreign Office circular of the 12th July, 1904, specifically laid down that subjects of the Malay States are not regarded as British protected persons outside the limits of the Federated Malay States. Consequently, when the 1904 instructions were issued by Sir E. Satow, persons of Chinese descent born in the Malay States were not included among the classes of Anglo-Chinese entitled to registration and protection in China. About the same time the status of the subjects of the native States of India came under consideration, and the Law Officers on the 17th February, 1905, gave the following opinion :-
.<
When the whole control of foreign relations has been assumed by His Majesty's Government it appears to us that the duty of protection followed. What measure of protection can be given must depend upon the extent of the jurisdiction enjoyed by His Majesty's Government in the country where protection is desired. If that jurisdiction is confined to those who are, in the strict technical sense of our municipal law. British subjects, it cannot be exercised in respect of protected persons.'
This opinion did not deal with the question of dual nationality. It was communicated to His Majesty's representatives abroad, but it was not understood that it altered in any way the ruling as to subjects of the Malay States laid down in the previous circular of the 12th July, 1904, to which no reference was made. In 1912 the Governor of the Straits Settlements urged that no distinction should be drawn as regards protec- 1912. (Confiden- tion in China between persons of Chinese descent born in the Malay States and those born in the Straits Settlements. It was then held that the opinion of the Law Officers in regard to subjects of the native States of India applied equally to subjects of the Malay States, and instructions were therefore issued that in China subjects of those States should be treated in a similar manner as British subjects. In consequence of this decision protection certificates were henceforth issued to persons of Chinese descent born in the Malay States; but subsequently this decision appears to have been overlooked and the General Consular Instructions issued in 1921 contained a direction that "natives of the Malay States may not at present receive British protection in China." Considerable confusion was thus caused, but eventually the General Instructions were amended in the sense of permitting subjects of the Malay States to receive protection in China as British protected persons.
14, 1922.
[T 7455/598/310.] Mr. Clive, No. 652, October 24, 1922, [T 14169/598/ 310.]
To Sir R. Macleay, No. 274. April 24, 1923. [T 4182/ +182/850.]
Sir R. Macleay,
No. 419, July 30,
1923. [T 9591/
4182/860.]
Foreign Office
circular, Novem-
ber 28, 1928.
[T 11174/4182/ 350.]
Consul Pitzipios,
October 8, 1914.
"China,"
No. 87983.
Sir J. Jordan,
No. 267,
October 18, 1915
"China."
No. 173089.
* See, for example, lists forwarded by His Majesty's consul at Swatow in 1914, which contain the names of three Anglo-Chinese naturalised in various Colonies and registered as British protected persons. The error appears to have escaped attention,
"
(c.) It was decided that the wives and widows of Anglo-Chinese Consul Bristowe, registered as British subjects should also be registered and protected in April 18, 1923. China, though they themselves might not have been born within the British 350.] Dominions.
[T 7228/4182/
To Sir R. Macleay, No. 793, October
6, 1923. [T 9895/ 4182/850.]
(D.) It was decided that the children born in China of Chinese British Mr. Clive, No. 509, subjects born in His Majesty's Dominions were not entitled to be registered August 10, 1922.
[T 11321/598/ as British subjects, and that, in consequence, their births should not be 310.1 registered at the British consulate.
2. The instructions of 1904, referred to on page 3. extending British registration and protection to Anglo-Chinese of the first generation, effected a fundamental change in the policy pursued up to that time by His Majesty's Government. This change of policy has been responsible for acute and constantly growing friction with the Chinese authorities during the past twenty years. In order to understand how the present situation has arisen, it is necessary to examine the history of the whole question from the year 1865 onwards.
To Sir R. Macleay, No. 346, May 16, 1923. [T 5114/ 4182/350.]
To Sir R. Macleay,
No. 793, October
6, 1923. [T 9895/ 4182/350.]
3. Protection of Anglo-Chinese appears to have commenced soon after the signing of the Treaty of Nanking, by which British subjects in China were withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Chinese authorities Lord Clarendon, and acquired various other immunities and privileges. In the year 1865 No. 25, December Lord Clarendon addressed a despatch to His Majesty's Minister in Peking 11, 1865. on the subject of the extradition from China (for which no provision had been made in the treaties) of criminals who had fled from Hong Kong to Chinese territory. He referred particularly to the case of the Chinese subjects of the British Crown who had become British subjects by the cession of Hong Kong. It was not clear whether the Chinese authorities recognised their character as British subjects or whether they did not claim still to regard them as amenable to Chinese jurisdiction when apprehended for crimes committed in Hong Kong. The British Minister was therefore instructed to inform the Chinese Government that Chinese who had their permanent domicile in Hong Kong at the time of the cession in 1842 had become in fact British subjects. and likewise any children born to them before or after the cession. "But children born in Hong Kong of Chinese parents, subjects of the Emperor, though regarded generally as British subjects by reason of their birth, could not be held to be British subjects against the Chinese Government.'
4. It appears that on receipt of Lord Clarendon's instructions Sir R. Alcock, then British Minister in Peking, took the following action
(1.) On the 11th April, 1866, he wrote to Prince Kung as follows
Chinese residents remaining in Hong Kong after its cession to the British Crown are British subjects; so are their children or the children of any that have since settled in Hong Kong. The same rule applies to the families of "Chinese emigrants who have settled in the Straits Settlements,"
This it will be noted was the exact contrary to the ruling laid down
by Lord Clarendon, but as the correspondence only reached the Foreign Office by a circuitous route in the form of an enclosure to a Colonial Office Colonial Office, despatch of a year later, the error appears to have escaped attention.
(2.) On the 9th June, 1866, he issued a circular to British consuls. informing them that Prince Kung had issued instructions to the local authorities in China, that when a person apparently
March 23, 1967.
24
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.