34
SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR
f
THE SUNDAY LABOUR QUESTION,
AN APPEAL TO GOVERNMENT.
HIS EXCELLENCr the Acting Governor received a deputation at Government House on the 18th Nov., 1890, from the British Mercantile Marine Officers' Association on the question of unnecessary Sunday labour on board ships in this port. The deputation which was received, the first instance, by Lieut. Thorburn, A.D.C., and which was subsequently introduced to His EXCELLENCY, the Hon. F. FLEMING, C.M.C., by the Hon. W. M. DEANE, C.M.G., Acting Colonial Secretary, consisted of Captain S. ASHTON, A.L.N.A. (President), Mr. CHESNEY DENGAN (Hon. Secretary), and Messrs. L.. R. JAMES, T. W. GALE, JAMES PEARCE and W. WINcn (officers).
Captain Asirrox said that the deputation felt most deeply grateful to His Excellency for granting it the honour of an interview, which was sought owing to the strong feeling amongst British officers that there should be a cessation of labour on board ship in this port on Sunday. Having studied Lord Kantsford's speech on the subject, made in the House of Lords on the 25th of July last, the Association came to the conclusion that the best way of causing much needed legislation on the subject was to move the Chamber of Commerce to recommend Government to introduce a Bill which would cause the cessation of unnecessary Sunday labour. With that object in view, the Association discussed the question at longth with the Committee of the Chamber of Commerce at a public couference held at the City Hall on the 17th ultimo. Full reports of the arguments used on that occasion together with the Clumber's written decision, dated the 31st of October, had doubtless come within His Excellency's cognisance.
His EXCELLENCY.-Yes, and your reply to the Chamber's letter has also been read by me.
CAPTAIN ASITTON, continuing, said he was very glad to think that His Excellency had taken notice of the movement, which, he submitted, was a righteous. and justifiable movement, and a protest against moral slavery. He could well understand that the Committee of the Chamber was temporarily mesmerized by its surroundings, which were heathenish, and that therefore they looked at tlie situation through somewhat dim glasses. But whether that were so or not, he contended that the reply of the Chamber was unjustifiable in the circumstances, and it was an insult to officers. It was perfectly well known to shipowners here that no individual officer was independent enough to take the consequences of making personal (individual) application for exemption from duty on the Sabbath. The proposition of the Chamber was impracticable in the extreme, and by no mcans amounted to a modus vivendi. The Chamber wrote: The Committee are of opinion that the Government could not legislate for the complete suppression of Sunday labour in this harbour, as the questions involved are very serious and would affect injuriously all the shipping interests of the Colony, and particularly the large Chinese population connected therewith." The Government, he was convinced, could legislate for the suppression of Sunday labour, it would not "injuriously affect all, or any, of the shipping interests of the Colony. As to the Chinese, he was aware that they always objected to any new law-innovations were detested by them no matter what their nature. A Sunday observance law would not injuriously affect the Chinese, and it was preposterous for the Chamber to make such an assertion. He was convinced the Chinese would warmly appreciate their Sunday's rest. It was regrettable that the Chamber should have seen fit to question, to virtually impeach the motives of Lord Knutsford. That important servant of Her Majesty had said, in as many words, that he would legislate wero the Chamber of Commerce to recommend it; and now the Chamber
35
SUNDAY LABOR IN HONGKONG HARBOUR.
committed itself to the statement:" Indeed if such a recommendation was formulated, the Committee are of opinion that Government would not legislate." That was a very bold assertion, and it was the first time in the anuals of colonial history that a Chamber of Commerce bad taken upon itself to answer for the The Association was Government on a question which affected the masses. persuaded that Lord Knutsford meant what he said, and that the Committee's reply was utterly unjustifiable. As to the distinction drawn by the Chamber between ocean-going and coast steamers, it was equally without reasonable basis, for ocean steamers became coasters, almost without exception, as soon as they touched Hongkong; for they usually called in, at Swatow, Amoy and Foochow en route to Shanghai, and often called at Foochow and Swatow on their way home from the Far East. It was palpably an insult for the Chamber to instruct British Officers that they must consider Sunday labour on board ships in this port, as a mere incident of a voyage of four months' duration !" They did not, and never would, consider it "a mere incidence" but they did consider, and continued to do so, that the incidence was a scandal and disgrace, and a blot upon our boasted civilization. Hongkong, instead of being a centre of light and That was civilization to our heathen neighbours, was absolutely the reverse,
the "incident" which was firmly implanted in the minds of British officers who were so unfortunate as to be in Hongkong on a Sunday-they were better off in the ports of China where owners had to pay heavy fees for permission from the Chinese Customs Authorities to work on the Sabbath. But flus was not the worst phase of the Committee's dictun: Officers were told, "officers may, and frequently do, escape Sunday in this port." Instead of Hongkong, a British possession, dearly bought with British blood and money, being a place of safety and protection for the storm-tossed British mariner, ho was instructed to consider himself fortunate if he “ escape" being in Hongkong on Sunday. Escape! He spurned the idea, and was confident that no Briton could be convinced that it was right for him to consider it a lucky escape were he never, once in a twelve-month, in Hongkong on Sunday. He trusted His Excellency would urge Her Majesty's Government to take steps to relieve the British Mercantile Marine Officer, whose practice it was to follow three principles of loyalty, which were :-- First, loyalty to their Sovereign, Defender of their Faith. Secondly, loyalty to their employers. Thirdly, loyalty to themselves. They had in years gone by proved their loyalty to their Sovereign and to their owners, and how they came before his Excellency with all humility and in deep carnestness to implore and beseech him to protect them from the continuance of an obnoxious custom (it was merely a custom, a relic of an evil past) which they felt to be a great hardship, and an invasion of their rights as loyal subjects of the Queen.
His EXCELLENCY, in reply, said he was very glad to receive the deputation and to hear the views expressed by them on a question which was, admittedly, one of much importance. It was, he believed, adimitted on all sides that it would be desirable to diminish Sunday labour as carried on in this colony if such could possibly be done. The question then arose whether it should be interfered with, and if so, by what means such interference should be brought about. There were only two ways by which this could be done, one being by having recourse to -compulsory legislation, the other by the volutary co-operation of those who were concerned in the shipping interests of the colony. As regards the question of compulsory legislation, the views of the Governor of Hongkong and the Governor of the Straits Settlements, as well as the conclusions which had been expressed by the Secretary of State, and which were stated by him in the House of Lords when answering a question in connection with this inatter in July last, must necessarily be known to the members of the deputation. If even, therefore, be this Excellency) entertained views different from those expressed by the Governors of Hongkong and the Straits Settlements, which he did not, it would not be for him to enter into that question. He admitted that he did not altogether agree with all the arguments which had been brought forward as proof that it was impossible to diminish Sunday labour in this colony. It was true that the Chinese did not regard the Sunday in the same light as we did, and they would, not unnaturally, be disposed to work on that day, if encouragement were given to them to do so. But this could scarcely be said to be peculiar to the Chinese, inasmuch as in some other countries, where Sunday labour did not exist to the same extent that it did here, there would doubtless be found many who would be ready to work on the seventh day in addition to the other six days of the week, if sufficient inducement were offered to them to do so. As to the
164
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.