•
17
consulate. The rule that this did not apply to those whose master nationality was Chinese was overlooked (see paragraph 18), and it was believed that all Anglo-Chinese of the first generation had been registered
as British subjects both before and after 1904; that those registered before To Colonial Office, 1904 were not entitled to protection in China, while those registered after May 7, 1914. 1904 were entitled to protection if provided with certificates in the form prescribed by the 1904 instructions. This gave rise to yet another To Colonial Office, misconception, namely, that the function of the 1904 certificate was to January 25, 1915. provide more reliable evidence of British nationality than the ordinary [T 87973.] Hong Kong birth certificate; whereas, in fact, it had been adopted as the best substitute obtainable of proof of the animus manendi, which is a constituent element of domicile. The net result, therefore, of the Governor Sir F. Governor's complaint was that fresh instructions were issued to His May to Sir J. Majesty's consuls in China, that before registering any Anglo-Chinese as Jordan, June 17, a British subject they must insist on better evidence than a birth certificate, 1915. [T 156075.] for example, a Hong Kong British-born certificate (this was the certificate Circular to Con- prescribed by the 1904 instructions), a British passport in proper order, or September 28, something of a similar nature. The effect of these instructions was to 1915. Enclosure give official countenance to the belief that all Anglo-Chinese of the first in Sir J. Jordan, generation were entitled to registration and protection in China, provided No. 267, October only that they would produce satisfactory evidence of birth within the 18, 1915. King's Dominions. In 1922, however, consuls were instructed, as explained in the following paragraph, to follow strictly the instructions in Major's Compendium ; but this compendium, which was published in 1915, just missed including the circular of the 28th September of that year. By this curious chance the instructions of 1915 were virtually abrogated.
suls, No. 47,
27. In 1921 His Majesty's consul-general at Canton once more Consul-General drew attention to the evils and dangers of the situation, and urged, as Jamieson, No. 4, Sir J. Jordan had urged in 1910, that we should immediately abandon [T 12846/2284/
September 7, 1921. our claim to protect Anglo-Chinese of the first generation. He pointed 3101, paragraph out that the old principle that all Chinese by blood remained Chinese had 24. always been and was still stubbornly upheld; that in view of the many fraudulent registrations and the frequency with which protection was made use of for illegal purposes, the contention of the Chinese Government was in most instances not without justification; and that consuls were thus reduced to an undesirable, if not ridiculous, state of impotency. Anglo- Chinese concealing their British status and posing as Chinese had mixed themselves up in political plots and schemes, but when they put their money on the wrong horse and had all their property confiscated by the winner, claims for redress put forward by the consul were contemptuously rejected. He pointed out that the Chinese authorities would in no case recognise our right to protect Anglo-Chinese of the first generation, and that it would be difficult to induce them to allow us to protect those of the second generation; it would be necessary for them to become unequivocally British subjects, accepting the disadvantages under treaty attendant on British nationality; and lists would have to be furnished annually to the Chinese authorities at the place where consular registration was effected.
The immediate occasion of this despatch was the occurrence of a dispute of more than usual violence with the Chinese authorities at Canton over the case of a Hong Kong-born British subject (see Appendix I, case No. 24).
28. The disputes with the Chinese authorities had been growing more frequent and more acrimonious, but Chinese affairs had been overshadowed by the Great War. Consequently. when Mr. Jamieson's despatch brought the question of the protection of Anglo-Chinese once more under review it had laid dormant for several years. No steps had been taken to deal with it or to elucidate the facts except that the effect of the instructions issued in 1904 had been summarised in a Compendium of Instructions issued to
Major's Com.
consuls in 1915. This summary, which is reproduced in paragraph 1, was, pendium, 1915, therefore, easily accessible, but the misconceptions as to their scope and P. 21. intention still persisted. Thus, Sir B. Alston supposed that
66 these instructions were intended to restrict within narrow limits the classes of Anglo-Chinese who could be admitted to British protection in China," when, in fact, their intention, and, in still greater degree, their effect, had
[16827]
D
36
Page 30Page 31
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.