34
that it may conceivably be the case, that these three or four hundred millions had an erroneous impression. As we have heard here to-day, the system was declared to be unlawful under the Manchu Dynasty and subsequently, in the time of the first Republic, and I am not quite clear, therefore, that they had good grounds for their belief, but I should like to make a strong point that we are not legislating for the 400 millions of China, but for the 600,000 odd inhabitants of a British Colony. This is a matter which must be decided--with all due regard to Chinese sentiment and prejudice on the principles of British law and the sentiments of a British community. The main point of the Bill is that the system of keeping mui-tsai must be abolished. On that point, I have definite instructions from the Secretary of State who represents the British Government and the British people. There can be no compromise on that point: the system must be abolished, and if the system is to be abolished I can see no reason why you should not say so. For that reason I think it is necessary- in fact essential to keep Clause 4 in the Bill, but I am quite prepared to accept any alternative form of words which will convey the same impression. But there can be no compromise on this point: that hereafter no person can be allowed to take a mui-tsai into his employment in British territory.
The matter of registration is, to my mind, not of the first importance. The Secretary of State has expressed his readiness to listen to any arguments against the imposition of registration in these matters and will no doubt, weigh very carefully what has been said by the hon. senior Chinese member in deciding what instructions he shall give with regard to bringing into force what may be called the reserved portion of the Bill that is to be brought into force by proclamation. With regard to the other minor amendments of the hon. member, Mr. Pollock, I think many of them may with advantage be adopted, and I should like to say now that I am much obliged to the hon. member-although I cannot agree with his views in some instances-for the trouble which he has taken in endeavouring to get this Bill into the best possible shape so that it may serve its object of protecting the interests of mui-tsai while causing the least possible friction and difficulty. The remaining points raised may be dealt with more suitably on the individual clauses of the Bill as they arise. It is proposed and seconded that the Bill be read a second time.
The second reading of the Bill was then carried.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the Council go into Committee to consider the Bill clause by clause.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY Seconded, and this was agreed to.
The Council accordingly went into committee.
HON. MR. H. E. POLLOCK: I beg to move an amendment in Clause 2 to make it direct and to run as follows:--
It is hereby declared and enacted that no payment of money to the parents or the guardians, or the employer of a female child, such payment purporting to be in return for the transfer of the child, confers upon any person any right of property in the child, or the right to retain possession or custody or control of the child, either as against the child's parent, guardian, or employer, or as against the child herself."
In support of this amendment, Sir, I would say that it seems to me a far more direct and definite statement of what you mean to effect than the present declarations Clause 2, which begins in a round-about sort of way, "Whereas certain persons have erroneously supposed" etc. Your Excellency has stated that the certain persons cannot possibly refer to the 300,000,000 to 400,000,000 people living in China, but they must be restricted to the 600,000 Chinese in this Colony. But, Sir, I would beg leave to point out, with deference, that this is not so, because the number of mui-tsai who are acquired in Hong Kong are a very trifling percentage indeed. The mui-tsai who have found their way to Hong Kong come from outside, within the vast Empire of China itself which is subject, as we know, to such very severe and distressing economic conditions, with famine prevalent in very large areas. With regard, Sir, to your observation about the desirability of the present system, I must confess I
35
have found it very difficult to apply that observation to the remarks which have been made by myself or by my Chinese colleagues. And, furthermore, Sir, I must have expressed myself very indifferently if you have not apprehended the fact that my whole contention is that Clause 2 of this Bill absolutely shatters the mui-tsai system as it hitherto existed; that it brings it to an end completely; that it does away with any possibility of it being represented either as a servile condition or as a proprietary condition. And the amendments which I shall ask your Excellency to make by and by in Clause 12 of this Bill will make the point even stronger, perhaps, than it is at present. I do not say that the system as it has existed hitherto is satisfactory. If I thought it were satisfactory I should oppose this Bill in toto. I do not do that nor do my honourable colleagues. We realise that a considerable part of this measure is desirable in the interests of, and the protection of, mui-tsai. We certainly do not contend that this measure, treating it as a whole, is either unnecessary or undesirable. Your Excellency has referred, incidentally, to certain laws which are stated to have been passed in China. But I can say, Sir, that from all I learn, these laws are no more carried into force and are of no more use than are the laws for the suppression of opium în China, and therefore I think we may treat them as a negative quantity. I think it necessary to say that, because I want to make the position of the unofficial members of this Council perfectly clear. That is all I have to say on Clause 2 of the Bill. I again urge that it is far more emphatic and far more direct to say that "it is hereby declared and enacted," instead of trying to refer to erroneous suppositions of certain persons with reference to the mui-tsai system. I do not think, Sir, it is an erroneous supposition. I believe the custom of China is that the payment of money does confer certain rights for a period of years, at all events till the girl attains the age of eighteen years, the marriageable age. I do not think it is at all incorrect. It is not an erroneous supposition; it is a true supposition. The Chinese custom, as I understand it, undoubtedly is that the payment of money does confer certain rights on the person who pays that money. I cannot see any good or any advantage to be got by saying that people erroneously suppose a thing, when, as I understand the position, they do not erroneously suppose the thing at all. That is all I have to say Sir, with regard to my amendment as to Clause 2.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL: One appreciates the desire to make this clause more direct and arresting, but I think the omission of the preamble obscures one very im- portant point, namely, that the clause does not make any change in the law what- ever; for the payment of money in return for obtaining the possession of a child has never, in Hong Kong, conferred any rights whatever on the purchaser. I must confess I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member question the correctness of the preamble and suggest that it is not an erroneous supposition at all and that payment does confer rights. We are speaking, Sir, in this clause of English law, Hong Kong law, and whatever the rights may be in China they do not concern us. It is undoubtedly an erroneous supposition that payment of money for a child confers, or has ever conferred any rights on the purchaser, and I think it is important to keep the preamble in this clause to make that point clear.
H.E. THE GOVERNOR: I think the hon. member's objection will be met if we cut out the word "erroneously " which means nothing very important from my point of view, but seems to mean a great deal from the hon member's point of view. There is no question, I think, that certain persons have made this erroneous supposition. HON. MR. HOLYOAK: Is it not very important that we should at this juncture protest in the most vigorous and comprehensive terms against the erroneous charges levelled against us in the Press of England ?-greatly exaggerated and largely untrue charges. I found, as no doubt you did, Sir, when at Home in the past few months, constant references to "Hong Kong slavery" and even to an open slave market-statements which were as preposterous in conception as they were untrue in fact. It is due to the Colony and the good government of the Colony that these base insinuations and positive misrepresentations of the truth should be contested in the most vigorous form. Therefore I wholly agree with your Excellency that the term erroneous "whether it is employed in the Bill or not does convey the conviction of this Council with regard to public opinion at Home which has been fostered upon gross misrepresentations of the truth.
63 33
B 2
Page 30Page 31