L
on
58
*
that I should address to the Canton Government. I attach a translation of this draft, which was in the handwriting of Mr. Fu Ping-sheung, the Foreign Secretary of the de facto Government of Canton, and which had been revised by Dr. C. C. Wu. This draft was not acceptable to me as it stood, but, with the advice of the two Chinese members of the Legislative Council and with the consent of the Executive Council, I prepared a counter-draft, of which I enclose a copy," which purports to be a letter from myself to the consul-general at Canton for * and transmission to the Canton Government. Tsing-wai, after discussion with Dr. C. C. Wu, replied:
On the 11th December, Mr. Wong original draft, for if the Nationalist Government were to occupy the position of "We still hold to the mediators their efforts would be more effective in all matters relating to a settlement." I could not, of course, accept the original draft, because it would have committed me to appointing officials of the Hong Kong Government as plenipotentiary delegates," whereas the Canton Government would only appoint their officers " to mediate." But I thought it very important to find out exactly what was in the mind of Mr. Wong Tsing-wai and his advisers. Therefore, on the 15th December, I wrote him a letter, of which I attach a copy,* and sent it to Canton by the hand of Dr. To Ying-kwan, who is a personal friend of Mr. Wong Tsing-wai. Dr. To Ying-kwan was trained in Western medicine at Edinburgh, has for a long time past been practising his profession in Hong Kong. He is an and avowed member of the Chinese Nationalist party, and knows personally all the members of the present Canton Soviet. He agreed to support my letter with his own arguments, and to bring me back an answer from Mr. Wong Tsing-wai. Dr. To's mission proved entirely successful, for on the 18th December Mr. Wong Tsing-wai wrote me a letter, of which I enclose a copy, and which was handed to me on the 19th December by Mr. Sung Tsz-man, the head of the Canton Treasury. Mr. Sung Tsz-man spent the night of the 19th December with me at Government House and returned to Canton Mr. A. G. M. Fletcher. I had a very full discussion on the present situation with the 20th December, accompanied by him at Government House on the afternoon of the 19th December, when there were also present: Messrs. A. G. M. Fletcher, J. H. Kemp, E. R. Hallifax, and D. W. Tratman. I attach a note prepared by Mr. Tratman of the conversation which then took place, from which you will see that the two points emphasised by Mr. Sung Tsz-man as necessary for a settlement of the strike were: (a) Compensa- tion of the strikers for the period during which they had been out of work; and (b) reinstatement of strikers in their original jobs. As regards reinstatement, this is, of course, impossible in those cases where jobs in which strikers were previously employed have since been filled by other men. Tsz-man, and during the course of subsequent conversation he appeared to agree I pointed this out to Mr. Sung that this matter also was at bottom one of compensation, and that, therefore, from his point of view, there was really only one deinand to be pressed, namely, that of money payment by employers to strikers. Payment such as this can, of course, only be considered as blackmail: nevertheless, I believe that most of the Chinese merchants in Hong Kong and several British merchants would be prepared to pay blackmail rather than to allow the existing state of things to continue. This is certainly the view of the two Chinese members of the Legislative Council. All official opinion in Hong Kong is emphatically against making any such payment, and it would be out of the question that the Hong Kong Government should be concerned in negotiations for such a payment, Nevertheless, if it should appear that, in the last resort, a settlement can only be obtained by such payment, and if Hong Kong merchants-Chinese and European-prefer to pay the money rather than suffer their present loss of trade, I doubt whether the Hong Kong Government would be justified in obstructing a settlement on these lines. The matter has not yet, however, gone far enough for me to give final opinion, and I shall address you further on the subject after Mr. Fletcher's return from Canton. He is due back to-day.
I have, &c.
• Not printed.
C. CLEMENTI,
Governor, &c.
うり
Enclosure in Annex XVI (i).
Record of an Interview between His Excellency the Governor and Mr. T. V. Sung (Sung Tsz-man), Finance Commissioner to the Canton National Government, at Gocernment House, on Saturday, December 19, 1925.
There were also present:-
The Colonial Secretary (Mr. A. G. M. Fletcher, C.M.G., C.B.E.). The Attorney-General (Mr. J. H. Kemp, K.C.),
The Secretary for Chinese Affairs (Mr. E. R. Hallifax, C.M.G.. C.B.E.). Mr. D. W. Tratman.
After mutual expressions of an earnest desire for a settlement between Canton and Hong Kong, Mr. Sung asked his Excellency what proposals he had to make, to which the latter replied that inasmuch as the so-called strike had its origin entirely outside the colony, he was at a loss for any suggestions for its cessation. After some further fencing, Mr. Sung put forward his views. He maintained the attitude that the quarrel lay between Chinese labour (the strikers) and the Hong Kong Government (not Hong Kong as a community), and he made it clear that the Canton Government could not and would not use force to compel the strikers to abandon their policy of boycott and non-co-operation. On the same grounds he held to the view, already expressed by the Canton Government, that the Canton officials could only act as mediators in the proposed conference, while the Hong Kong officials should be plenipotentiary negotiators. Mr. Sung added the adjective responsible "before" mediators." but it was not clear that this made any material After some change in the general position as viewed by the Canton Government. argument Mr. Sung admitted that he personally could see no reason why both sets of officials should not be part and parcel of their respective delegations.
T
J
As to terms, it was made clear that the strikers are still working on their demands presented to the unofficial delegation. Mr. Sung mentioned: (a) inequality of treatment, freedom of meeting and speech; (b) flogging; (c) deportation; (d) closing of unions; (e) representation.
As
As to (a), it was stated that the Hong Kong Government had for some time past been considering the abolition of the obsolete Regulations of Chinese Ordinance of 1888. Such provisions of this ordinance as it might be necessary to retain would The Peak Reservation was be made applicable to all without distinction of race. also mentioned and the reasons therefor explained. It was pointed out that the Chinese community could have its own Hill Reservation if it so desired, and that the Chinese representatives on the Legislature had agreed to the existing rule. to (b) and (c), it was made clear that these referred to the Emergency Regulations, which would lapse as soon as normal conditions were restored. Mr. Sung was informed that it had not actually been found necessary to carry into effect the rule for the flogging of criminal intimidators. At the same time it was pointed out that flogging for certain crimes of violence is part of the law of England, and would remain part of the colonial law while that was so.
As to (d), it was shown that this demand was based on a complete misunder- standing of the facts. No unions had been closed, though some might have been As to (c), the Colonial Secretary evicted by landlords for default of payment of rent.
gave the history of the constitutional reform movement in the colony, and explained that it had been resisted by the Chinese representatives. His Excellency added that a demand for more representation could not with propriety come from any but the Chinese in the colony. If in due course such a request were prepared, he assured Mr. Sung that it would receive his most careful and sympathetic consideration.
Mr. Sung next dealt with the economic terms, namely, (f) strike pay, and (g) reinstatement. As to (f), his Excellency again pointed out that the strike had no foundation in the economic position of labour in the colony, and he was therefore unable to see how he could make any recommendation to employers regarding payment of wages for services not only not rendered, but withdrawn for no fault of the employers. As to (g), his Excellency expressed his firm belief that the removal of the boycott and all that that term implied would lead to such a revival of industry that there would be no difficulty in reabsorbing all the labour now withheld or The Colonial Secretary pointed out the withholding itself from the colony.
[14166]
I 2
524