PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
། ༄། ། །
C.O. 882
8
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
4
Act of 1855 if the emigrants were under contract. Under these provisions, contract emigration for foreign countries was still prevented by the exercise of the Emigration Officer's powers but he was not empowered to prevent free emigration to foreign countries within thirty days' sail. An amending and consolidating Ordinance in 1874 altered the form but did not affect the substance of these provisions.
In 1875 it became desirable, owing to the war in Achin, to prevent even free emigration to that country, and accordingly in 1876 a further Ordinance was passed which brought the law practically into the shape in which it now stands. All ships were required to obtain a licence, but the fee was reduced to a nominal amount, the emigration officers were allowed to issue licences for ships carrying free emigrants on voyages of not more than thirty days, and, to cover the case of the "mail steamers and other vessels" above referred to, the Governor was authorised to grant general licences to carry free coolies, or coolies under contract for British possessions, for any number of voyages. clauses were embodied without alteration in
These
substance in the consolidating Ordinance of
1889, which comprises the existing law.
Subject to these modifications of detail, the general policy of 1869 has hitherto been followed, .e., contract emigration has not been allowed except to British possessions; free emigration has been prohibited when there was good reason to suppose that the emigrants were not properly treated on arrival (e.g., in the case of certain South American States); when there was ground for believing that the emigration was only nominally free, i.e., that the coolies were under verbal contract; or when either the Chinese Government or the Government of the country to which the emigrants wished to go raised objections.
In one instance, in 1884-1885, the British Government refused to permit free emigration to Mexico unless the Mexican Government would allow them to exercise the right of protection ever the coolies in Mexico, The Mexican Government agreed to this but the proposal eventually fell through,
Within the last few years the prohibition of free emigration to Peru and Mexico has been withdrawn.
The only occasion on which the principle of prohibition of contract emigration except to British possessions has been departed from was in April, 1905, when the late Government in. formed Sir M. Nathan, that, provided that the Chinese Government agreed to allow contract emigration to Panama, that emigration might be carried on from Hong Kong. [The question whether the terms of the existing Hong Kong
5
law prohibited this emigration was not raised. No steps appear to have been taken at the time. to give effect to this decision.]
The question has assumed a new importance within the last few months. In March, 1906, Messrs. Watts, Watts, and Company were refused permission to carry contract labourers from Foochow to Santa Rosalia (Mexico). In view of this case and of the fact that the Government of the United States of America are calling for tenders for the conveyance of coolies under contract for work on the Panama Canal, a number of applications have been made to Lord Elgin for the relaxation of the existing restrictions. Letters have been received from Mesars, Watts, Watts, and Company supported by the Executive Council of the Chamber of Shipping of the United Kingdom, from the Liverpool Steamship Owners' Association, from the China Association, and the Chamber of Commerce of Hong Kong. It is understood that representations have also been made to the President of the Board of Trade.
The gist of the arguments advanced is ;-
(a) that the prohibition is against the interests of British Shipping. Not only is the actual profit on the carriage of emigrants lost but there is the danger that when a line of steamers has been employed in the coolie trade between two ports
it will end by acquiring control of the general trade, and British shipping will thus be ousted by foreign.
(b) that it is against the interests of the coolies themselves. If they are not carried by British ships they will be carried by foreign vessels, which are not subject to such strict regulations for the health and comfort of the passengers as are contained in the Act of 1855 and the Hong Kong Ordinances.
[Some support is lent to this argument by recent despatches from the Consul at Swatow which shew that not only are the passenger rules of foreign governments much less strict than those imposed on British ships, but that in at least one instance a foreign Consul has not scrupled to alter his system of measurement to allow a ship to carry more coolies than she was entitled to do.]
(e) That the Chinese Government approves of the emigration and, being now in diplomatic relation with the countries to which the emi- grants are to be sent, can adequately look after their interests after their arrival,
(d) That in the altered circumstances there is no need to fear that the emigrants will suffer on the voyage as in former times, since those sufferings resulted, in part at least, from the employment of sailing or slow-steaming vessels which caused the voyages to be unduly pro- longed, and that in any case the publicity which