*
SUNDAY LABOUR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.
violent change in the social condition of Hongkong. Of course the argument of those who wish to enforce Sunday is, that the work of seven days would be performed in six, and that it would be bolter done; but without going too much into detail, I confess that the views I have obtained from the practical men of the Colony so far have, with me, the greatest weight; views which hold that under the conditions we have here, it would be impossible to do seven days' work in six; that there would be a real diminution in the amount of labour performed in the Colony and a real diminution therefore in the result of labour, which is practically wealth. This is not all however. I know one or two other results that would also occur. Either the labourers would earn less wages, or such labour as they did would be more expensive, and either would be a very great evil. Hongkong owes its superior attractions to the neighbouring provinces of China, because its labour has been better remunerated, and to diminish the wages of the labourer would be a very great misfortune. I don't know, however, that that would be the result. My own opinion is that the labourer would get the same wages, although doing less work, and I am not quite sure that the result of that would not be worse. By those who do not think, there is generally supposed to be an indefinite fund from which the wages of the labourer are obtained. The matter of fact is, that usually in all communities, the fund for the supply of labour is about the same, whatever the laws are; and if the laws are such as to raise the price of labour, the natural effect is, that less labour is done, loss work is created.. I believe the result would be-- supposing the information I have got is correct, as to the impossibility of performing seven days' work in six hero-a very serious diminution of the wealth of the community, or if not an actual diminution, à lessening of the increase in the wealth of the community. That would be a very serious evil, besides rendering the Colony less attractive to the people of the neighbouring provinces, who have done so much for our prosperity. There is, however, this to be said also, that it is very doubtful whether a ineasure against Sunday labour in the harbour would have by any means the effect expected, even in behalf of those for whom it is desired. It was pointed out to me, that where vessels are very much pressed--and that happens very often, competition in these days is so keen-a considerable number of them would anchor in Chinese waters and have their cargo sent out to them, so that practically work on Sunday would go on the saine as before, in defiance of the law. But even supposing that would not be the case, and that all those in whose behalf it is sought would be benefitted by it--I make the number to be a thousand at the outside-it must certainly and would affect in another way a much larger number, say 100,000, and this is my principal reason for being unable to propose a measure of this kind at present. There are other reasons of scarcely less cogency. It would be impossible to enforce such a law without fine and imprisonment; and all experience goes to show that the great majority of those affected would have to go to gaol. We should then have in gaol a large number of persons who were there for no other reason than that they had done what their education and traditions taught them to be not only an innocent but a praiseworthy act, that is, to work. They would be put mich in the same category and in very similar conditions with those who had really committed crime. Now, I need hardly say, that would be a great evil. It would go a long way towards making criminals of people who, as far we know, were perfectly innocent before. Besides, I believe it would obliterate the distinctness of the boundary line between right and wrong, or at all events make it very hazy. A man who had been convicted for working on Sunday, a man who had no respect for Sunday, and had never been taught to have any,
either by education, or tradition, that man who had been sent to gaol for it would at once say, 'Why should I not go thieving? I shall get no worse for it. I am exactly in the same position as anyone who does so,' I believe crime would be increased in another way. Can anyone conceive what will be done by a hundred thousand or so of people who would be reduced to enforced idleness on Sunday? They would have to do something. In all probability they would occupy their leisure, a very large majority of them, in the way in which their leisure is generally occupied--by gambling, and thereby as the direct result of gambling or idleness, I believe there would be a very considerable increase in crime. If you conceive 100,000 men enforced to idleness one day in seven, and that a day which they have no respect for, I venture to think it is not easy to calculate the consequences. I believe that a very large amonat of evil would be done in one way or another, incalculably larger than the good done to the few who would be served. Now it is quite possible these arguments may be open to reply, although I confess I cannot see how all of them can be met, and I shall therefore
SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.
3
not keep my mind closed to the views of those who have opinions to the contrary. I am still quite willing to listen to all that may be said, but so far, while very much sympathising with those who no doubt require release in this matter, I am bound to say I see no way of affording that release except by a violent change in the social condition of the Colony, which cannot be contemplated for a moment. These are my reasons why at all events I don't see my way to any measure on the subject, and I wish it to be an answer to a considerable number of petitions from various quartors that have reached me.--" China Mail,” April 18, 1889.
HOUSE OF LORDS.
FRIDAY, JULY 25, 1890.
SUNDAY LABOR AT HONGKONG AND SINGAPORE The EARL OF MEATH asked her Majesty's Government whether their attention had been called to the following remarks made by Admiral his Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh at the annual meeting of Missions to Seamen Society, held
at the Mansion House on April 28:---
"The report also complains that in some ports abroad, and in Crown colonies, especially Hongkong and Singapore, the crews are compelled to do unnecessary work in trans-shipping cargoes on Sundays, which causes much discontent and discomfort to the men, and puts a stop to all religious observances, whereas in the Australian and self-governing colonies such unnecessary working of cargoes is rigidly forbidden. I understand that the Secretary of State for the Colonies has called the attention of some colonial Governors to this grievance of seamen; and whether the practice complained of had been prohibited, so that the men might enjoy their Sunday rest in port in common with other of her Majesty's subjects. He said he would argue this question not on the religious ground, but on the ground that every working man had a right to one day's rest in the week. He did not see why a seaman should be obliged to work on Sunday if he went to one of our Crown colonies, while he would not have to do so if he went to Australia, where Sunday labour was forbidden, because the working men had votes and could make their influence felt. He could not say that her Majesty's Government were not responsible for the state of things existing in the Crown colonies. The people there had no votes, and consequently it was the duty of her Majesty's Government to see that no injustice was done to the working classes. He was not one of those who thought that work should under no circumstances be done on the Sunday, but he was of opinion that great necessity should be shown before work was carred out on that day. Unless some satisfactory reply were given to his question, be should move next Session for papers on the subject.
LORD KNUTSFORD said his attention had been called to the remarks of the Duke of Edinburgh to which the noble Earl had referred, but the question had been brought under his notice last year when he received a letter from the Rev. Mr. Bowyer, and be communicated the contents of that letter to the Governors of Hongkong and the Straits Settlements. The Governor of Hongkong expressed his desire to see Sunday labour diminished at the port, but after fuil inquiry into the subject and consideration of the difficulties of compulsory legislation, he came to the conclusion that such compulsory legislation on the Sunday labour question was not desirable, and, although he (Lord Knutsford) was not prepared to assent to all the Governor's reasons in support of that decision, he regretted to say that he was obliged to concur in the decision itself. The same decision was arrived at by the Governor of the Straits Settlements, who expressed himself very warmly in sympathy with the desire of those who wished to see Sunday labour diminished. He had himself taken steps towards diminishing Sunday labour, because in all Government contracts a provision was now inserted that work under those contracts should not be carried on on Sunday, except in very urgent cases and under special authority. But after communicating with the Chamber of Commerce, the leading merchants, and the unofficial members of the Council, the Governor of the Straits Settlements came to the conclusion arrived at by the Governor of Hongkong, that compulsory legislation was not desirable. The answers that were received by him
148
14