80
proof in the past of the uselessness of an ordinance when no
steps whatever are taken to see that the terms of the ordinance
are carried out.
3
We trust also that we shall not be told, as is usually
the case, that our letter is being forwarded to the Hong Kong
Governor for his observations. You have made definite statements
and we call upon you, and not the Governor, to substantiate
them.
We now refer to Lord Passfield's statement in the
House of Lords yesterday, which can only be described as utterly
disgraceful and contemptible. Both Lord Passfield and you must
be well aware that the Mui Tsai system is not and never has been
adoption, and a reference to your files will show you that
leading Chinese authorities in Hong Kong have asserted that what-
ever the mui tsai system involves, it does not involve adoption.
Is not Lord Passfield aware that so-called "adopted
daughters" did not come into the scheme of registration ?
Taking into account the wording of the Deed of Sale of these
children it would appear that Lord Passfield does not understand
the meaning of adoption. It might be a benefit to him if he
studied the Adoption of Children Act of 1926 where the status
of an adopted child is clearly laid down. It might also
prevent him from prostituting the honourable practice of adoption.
It is of small importance that Lord Passfield by his
reply should make himself the laughing stock of the world, and in