CO882-(8-9) — Page 90

| PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE || Reference :---

نبيا

C.O. 882

ALLY MOVOLIT FELTON OF THE DSRAPHIC-

S.NOT TÜ

LONDON

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 number of

any

These voyages. clauses were embodied without alteration in 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, i.., 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, ie., 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 raised

go objections.

In one instance, in 1884-1885, the British Government refused to permit free enigration to Mexico unless the Mexican Government would allow them to excrcise the right of protection over 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Within the last few years the prohibition of free emigration to Peru and Mexico has been withdrawn.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. Natban, that, provided that the Chinese Government agreed to allow contract emigration to Panama, that emigration might be carried on from Hong Kong. No steps appear to have been taken at the time to give

affect to this decision.

The question has assumed a new importance within the last year. In March, 1906, Mesars. 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 cookies under

5

contract fur work on the Panama Canal, a number of applications have been made for the relaxation of the existing restrictions. Letters have been received at the Colonial Office from

Messrs. 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 carrige 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 soquiring control of the general- trade, and British shipping will thus be ousted by foreign.

(6) 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 1835 and the Hong Kong Ordinances.

[Some support is lent to this argument by recent despatches from the Consul at Swatow which show that not only are the passenger rules of foreign Governments much less strict than those imposed on British akipa, but that in at least one instance a foreign Consul has not norupled to alter his system of mesameement to allow a ship to carry more coolies than she was entitled to do.]

(c) That the Chinese Government approv of the emigration and, being now in diplomaatio relation with the countries to which the anti- grants are to be sent, can adequately land after their interests after their arrival.

(d) That in the altered circumstances ther

is no need to fase that the emigramin will amil on the voyage se in former times, since then sufferings resulted, in part sa iasat, Emera employment of miling or slow-emming which caused the voyages to be unduly lomgud, and that in any imao the publicity attends all emigration matters at the present day and the strong competition for the traffic would prevent the existence of abuses.

The Governor of Hong Kong, who the groposal to allow such emigration, add at propinat coolies from Canton ta the Dutch

Inches, instead of being hipped from Kong pass through the Colesy and go on

Page 90Page 91

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

།། །། ། །

Reference :---

C.O. 882

8

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

| ALLY WITHOUT FINDUNNON OF THE DE REPRODUCED PEPTOGRAPHIC-

PRO-NOT TO

6

Swatow, where they are shipped in German vessels. The Governor's despatch is printed as Appendix A to this memorandum.

The applications to the Colonial Office have also dealt with a minor point. The Consuls cannot give licenses to a vessel carrying coolies on a voyage of more than 30 days' duration; such licences can only be given by the Governor. They ask that this limitation should be removed.

The distinction between voyages of more and voyages of less than 30 days dates back to the Ordinance of 1871, the original object having been, as already stated, to relieve the vessele regularly employed in a well conducted trade with neighbouring countries from some of the restrictions required in other cases.

The Governor concurs that the distinction (now clearly out of date, as many countries more than 30 days' voyage distant in 1871 would not be so now should be abolished and has sub- mitted an Ordinance to allow the Governor to issue licences to carry contract emigrants to any destination and to allow the Emigration Officers at Chinese ports, who, it is understood, are practically identical with the Consuls, to issue licences to carry either free or contract emigrants on a voyage of any duration.

MINUTE BY LORD ELGIN,

The foregoing memorandum" and the annexed copy of a minute by Mr. Churchill were sub- mitted by me to the Cabinet in November last. The memorandum then contained a paragraph Which pointed out that the Governor of Hong Kong had apparently been advised that the law prohibited him from issuing a licence to a vessel conveying contract coolies to foreign countries; that it was by no means clear that this view Was correct, but that the point was immaterial as the Governor was in any case forbidden by long standing instructions from the Secretary of State to issue licenses to such vessels. In view of the doubt thus suggested as to the exact legal position, the Cabinet decided that the matter should be referred to the Law Officers of the Crown. The Law Officers were accordingly asked to state :--

(a) "Whether, having regard to the pro- visions of the Chinese Passengers Act, 1855, the Ordinance as it stands, apart from any instructions from previous Secretaries of State, actually prohibits by implication or otherwise, the Governor of Hong Kong from granting a

• Eastern No. 105.

7

licence for a single voyage to a vessel carrying indentured coolies to a place outside His Majesty's dominions.

(b)

"Whether, if this is not the case, and if the Governor's inability to grant such licences is due solely to the instructions given by Secretaries of State, such instructions are, or are not, ultra vires, and if ultra vires, to what extent ?'

The opinion of the Law Officers on these points is annexed as Appendix B. It is to the effect that the prohibition to issue licences in such cases is contained not in the law but only

in the instructions of various Secretaries of State, and that those instructions were not ultra vires.

The point therefore which requires decision is whether these instructions should or should not

be modified, and I submit this question for the consideration of the Cabinet.

The argument for maintaining the prohibition is stated in Mr. Churchill's minute. Personally

I think the circumstances so entirely different that it is unfair to condemn a carrying trade (for it is nothing more), in which we have nothing whatever to do with either the previous engage- ment, or subsequent employment, of the coolie, for reasons which apply to those features of the coolie's engagement in South Africa. But no doubt the debate on the New Hebrides Conven- tion shows once more that any stick is good enough to beat a dog with. If, however, His Majesty's Government were of opinion that in view of the serious loss to British shipping and the stimulus to foreign com- petition which will result if no steps are taken in the matter, the instructions should be modified,

I am disposed to think that the best courge would be to lay down, that having regard to the abuses which formerly existed, His Majesty's'/ Government are not prepared to authoring the Governor to issue any such liomoss axong under the most stringent regulations—regw tions which must be carefully prepared by the Colonial Office in consultation with the Governor of Hong Kong, and approved by His Majesty's Government.

These regulations should have it as their object to ensure that the coolies fully understand the nature of the contract into which they are entering, and that the contracts do not contain provisions to which His Majesty's Government - could properly take exception.

16th February, 1907.

R.

H