446 Boundaries and Beyond
of 60 registered Straits Chinese.^5 Many of these Straits Chinese were
sojourners in Amoy. For instance, the 27 registered in 1846 had all
returned to the Straits by the beginning of the following year,^6 just as
another group of visiting Straits Chinese were arriving. Although a number
of them were traders, some of these Straits Chinese were employed at
the British Consulate since they were multi-lingual in the local dialect,
Mandarin and English. They acted as interpreters between the consular
and the Chinese ofβicials.^7 These Straits Chinese also undertook the task
of supercargo on board the vessels from the Straits.^8
These Chinese born in the Settlements were considered by Consul
Layton to be the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty and as such they were
told to register themselves at the Consulate upon their arrival.^9 In his
classic work, Trade and Diplomacy, published some 60 years ago, John
K. Fairbank devotes βive paragraphs to the question of Britain’s control
over its Chinese subjects in coastal China in general and at Amoy in
particular.^10 He highlights the confusing and conβlicting issue of dual
nationality that was prevalent in Amoy. “True to its legal principles”,
as Fairbank remarks, “the British government undertook to protect
them.”^11 The Chinese authorities were prepared to give up jurisdiction
over them, provided they “should strictly avoid wearing Chinese dress
while in China”.^12 The British authorities also stipulated that these British
subjects “would forfeit British protection if they penetrated the interior
beyond treaty limits, and ... they were liable to all the treaty regulations
regarding smuggling and the like”.^13
Another author, E. Tang, discusses the same issue with respect to the
status of Chinese British subjects from the Straits Settlements in China.
Notwithstanding the time frame given in his title, 1844‒1900, he restricts
himself almost entirely to events after 1865. Tang’s essay shows the
continuation of the Sino-British dispute about the nationality question in
the later decades of the nineteenth century. He concludes that:
- FO 677/26, no. 16, April 18, 1851, Imperial Commissioner-cum-Governor-
General of Liang Guang Governor-General Xu Guangjin to British plenipotentiary
Samuel George Bonham, no. 16, April 18, 1851. - FO 663/49: Amoy, Layton to Davis, February 6, 1847.
- FO 663/49: Amoy, Henry Gribble to Henry Pottinger, January 1, 1844.
- FO 663/49, G.G. Sullivan to Davis, November 26, 1845.
- FO 663/54, Layton to Bonham, no. 39, July 19, 1848.
- Fairbank, Trade and Diplomacy, pp. 215‒7.
- Ibid., p. 215.
- Ibid.
- Ibid., p. 216.
http://www.ebook3000.com