Enclosure No.3.
4.
172
Committee then appointed by this Society, also an extract from the South China Morning Post of the 22nd October, 1928, giving an account of the proceedings at the annual meeting. As I have already said no representations were made to the Hong Kong Government by the Society after this meeting; but it is upon the proceedings of this meeting that the letter of Mr. J. H. Harris to the Manchester Guardian was based. I can only suppose that the newly elected Committee of the Anti-muitsai Society, which is not representative of local Chinese opinion, preferred to make an effort at propaganda in the United Kingdom rather than to submit recommendations for the consideration of the Hong Kong Government and its responsible advisers I mean the Secretary for Chinese Affairs and the Chinese members of the Legislative Council. However, the extract from the South China Morning Post above referred to was sent by the Colonial Secretary to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for his observations and he replied on the 7th November, 1928, that the Domestic Servants Ordinance seemed to him to be an excellent example of legislation in advance of public opinion and that the time had not yet came to enforce part III of the Ordinance.
7/3
6.
J
Upon receipt of your telegram of the 17th
January, I convened a special meeting of the District Watch Committee, the body most representative of Chinese opinion in this Colony and including all three Chinese members of
the Legislative Council. This meeting took place at Government House on the 4th February, with myself in the Chair and with the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General
The and the Secretary for Chinese Affairs also present. members of the District Watch Committee stated that, in spite of the great increase in the population of the Colony (it was estimated at 681,800 in 1923 and cannot now be less
than
Page 170Page 171