ล
3
592
(Secret.)
My Lord,
Inclosure 2 in No. 1.
Governor Sir F. Lugard to the Eart of Crewe.
Government House, Hong Kong, December 24, 1908. IN continuation of my Secret despatch of the 25th ultimo I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Lordship's telegram of the same date, stating that a telegram from Mr. Chesny Duncan to Members of Parliament had been received respecting the banishment of Ch'an Lo-ch'un, Chiu Shiu-pok, and P'un Lan-sz, and asking what were the facts.
2. To this inquiry I replied by telegram on the 27th idem, as follows:--
"In consequence of riot broken out 2nd November Proclamation has been issued under section 6, Ordinance No. 10, 1886. Ch'an Lo-chun, Chiu Shiu-pok, not being British subjects, banished under section 13; P'un Lan-sz, not being British subject, banished under Ordinance No. 1, 1882; after careful inquiry in accordance with advice of Executive Council."
I added the following Confidential postscript :-
"They are leaders of movement Japanese boycott; culminated in local disturbances and other outrages.”
3. On the 8th instant, I received a further telegram from your Lordship to the effect that the Government of Japan had asked that Hong Kong should institute more rigid control over boycott, to prevent intimidation by organized Societies; and stating that your Lordship would be glad if I would do all that I properly could to meet the wishes of Japan, informing you beforehand, if I considered that any exceptional measures were necessary and reporting fully by despatch. To this message I replied by telegram on the 11th instant, that active steps were being taken to control the boycott.
4. In point of fact no steps, except those already reported to your Lordship in my Secret despatches of the 12th and 25th ultimo, were taken, until at meeting of Executive Council held on the 23rd instant, it was advised (the General Officer Commanding and Mr. E. A. Hewett being absent, and the Colonial Secretary dissenting) that the Procla- mation issued under section 6, of Ordinance 10, of 1886, should be rescinded. Mr. Hewett, though not present at the meeting, had intimated that he had agreed to the recission of the Proclamation, but would have liked to hear the discussion in Council.
5. The circumstances which led me to take this step were these.
Of the persons whose names are mentioned in my despatch of the 25th ultimo some were in the Colony and some happened to be absent at the date the banishment orders were issued. soon as those who were in the Colony learned that banishment warrants had been issued against them, they left the Colony, before the police communicated with them, with the exception of three men, Chan Hang-kiu, Ng Hin-tsz (also called Ng Hin-om), and Nip Kun-man. The first of these went to the Registrar-General and protested that he had taken no part either in the boycott or in the riots, and that he was willing to publish a statement in the local press to that effect. I considered his case in Executive Council
As
on the 1st instant, and the Council unanimously advised that if Chan Hang-kiu published such a statement the banishment warrant issued against him should be cancelled. The statement, copy of which I inclose," was made before the Registrar- General on the 3rd instant, and published in the native press on the 4th and 5th instant. A similar statement, copy of which I also inclose,* was voluntarily published in the native press by Yik Chi-kin, a prominent member of the Commerce Investigation Society, as the Boycott organization styles itself.
6. On the 27th ultimo, Ng Hin-tsz and Nip Kun-man forwarded to me, through their solicitor Mr. Otto Kong Sing, the Petitions of which I inclose copies.* These Petitions I also considered in Executive Council on the 1st instant when Council advised that, as neither of the petitioners were willing to publish a statement dissociating himself from the boycott, the banishment orders against them should be carried into effect, and that they should be referred to the terms of the banishment order for an explanation of the grounds upon which they were banished. Accordingly, on the same day, Ng Hin-tsz was arrested by the police.
7. On the following day his solicitor gave notice of application for a writ of habeas corpus; and on the evening of the same day the Crown Solicitor intimated to me that, in his opinion, the banishment warrants issued under section 13, of Ordinance 10,
* Not printed.
of 1886, were bad inasmuch as seven days had been named in the orders, in accordance with a decision of the Executive Council on the 23rd ultimo, as the period which the persons banished should leave the Colony, whereas, under section 13, of the Ordinance, the period should have been one of not less than seven days; and that, if the case came for trial before the Chief Justice, Ng Hin-tsz would certainly be released. I referred the point for the considered opinion of the Attorney-General and Crown Solicitor who reported that the warrants were bad and that they could not be amended, In view of their opinion (copy inclosed),* I directed that Ng Hin-tsz should be released from custody, and he was accordingly set at liberty on the 3rd instant. I further directed that Nip Kun-man should not be arrested.
8. On the same day the China Association initiated the correspondence, noted in the schedule, of which I inclose copies; and on the 5th instant the Chamber of Com- merce joined in the correspondence. I have reason to believe that both the China Association and the Chamber of Commerce feared that the Japanese boycott might, as the result of the action taken by the Government, be converted into a boycott of British trade. I am glad, however, to report that no such movement has taken place.
9. On the 10th instant I reconsidered the whole question in Executive Council, in view of the fact that in all of the cases except three the banishment orders had not been used, and that in the case of one person (Chiu Shiu-pok) additional facts implicating him in the organization and furtherance of the boycott had come to light since the issue of the Banishment Order.
The Council advised that the Attorney-General should consider the point whether any further steps could be taken, and Mr. Rees Davies, in consultation with the Crown Solicitor and Mr. H. E. Pollock, K.C., who (with Sir H. Berkeley) had been retained to assist the Crown in the event of proceedings subsequent to the Ng Hin Tsz case, reported that he and the gentleman named concurred in the view expressed in his Opinion of the 3rd instant. As the facts referred to as having come to light since the date of the banishment order against Chin Shin-pok had occurred before the date of the order, it was evident that no further proceedings in banishment could be taken. Meanwhile I was advised by the Captain Superintendent of Police and the Registrar- General that all intimidation by organized Societies of the kind referred to in your Lordship's telegram had ceased, and that the situation no longer demanded exceptional The boycott of Japanese trade continues, but the Registrar-General reports that there is an appreciable increase in the trade in certain Japanesc articles, and the methods of those who still continue the movement are in no way contrary to law. It therefore appeared to me that there was no longer any justification for retaining the Proclamation in force, and I had cause to believe that the exceptional powers which it authorizes wore keeping alive the unrest and apprehension among the Chinese merchants which have been noticeable for some time past. I accordingly again considered the matter in Executive Council, with the result stated in paragraph 4 of this despatch, and I inclose a copy of the notice which has now been issued rescinding the Proclamation made under the Peace Preservation Ordinance.
measures.
10. In conclusion, with reference to paragraph 3 of my Secret despatch of the 12th ultimo, I have the honour to inclose copies of a despatch from the Acting British Consul-General at Canton dated the 14th ultimo, and of a despatch from Sir John Jordan dated the 27th ultimo. I have received no communication from His Majesty's Ambassador at Tôkiô, but the Japanese Consul at this port has expressed his dissatis- faction at the failure of the Government to enforce the banishment warrants. however, of opinion that the object which I had in view in issuing these warrants has already been effected; peace and good order have been restored, and all overt acts in promotion of the boycott of Japanese trade have ceased.
I a01,
It is manifestly impossible for this or any other civilized Government to compel Chinese residents to sell or to purchase Japanese goods if they do not desire to do so. Mr. Taft, at the time of the American boycott, clearly laid down the limitations beyond which the American Government could not go in its efforts to put an end to that boycott, and the Japanese Government caunot, I think, fail to recognize that this Colony has (perhaps at some risk to British trade, and certainly at the cost of considerable apprehension among the commercial population) acted up to the full extent of those limitations.
I have, &c. (Signed)
* Not printed.
F. D. LUGARD.