CO129-472 - Others - 1921 — Page 685

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

678

: the gravest mis-use by opponents of the mui-tsai system, a Chinese social institution which it is not in the power of laws or Governments to abolish.

If you feel any doubt about the report on a cursory reading I can point out several objections which need not be set out here.

r. Colline! suggested answer will land us sooner or later in showing this report to emissaries of the Society - a procedure of which we have had unhappy experience. The report is 39 years old and therefore not to-day a living issue on which people have a right to information. It was written by a judge on points of law and practice that came before his court. Although it is not expressly stated to be confidential, and although the Colonial Office thought at the time of publishing it, I think the circumstances justify the view that it was a report for the confidential information of the Government of the day. I would therefore prefer, if possible, to take the line that the report is not for publication or communication to any unofficial body.

But, before we say this, we must make sure that it has not been published in Hong Kong, where it was printed, which is quite possible.

Weight for the moment reply to the Society, as we truthfully can, that our records do not show that any inquiry was held, but that we are consulting the Governor. We should then tell the Governor that we propose, with his concurrence, to take the line that the report is not for publication and to refuse to communicate it to the Society, if they ever get to hear of its existence, but before doing this, we want him to make sure that it has not been published and is not accessible locally. We should also ask him whether there is any record of any inquiry other than Mr. Russell's report, and, if not, we should eventually tell the Society that no inquiry was held but that from 1883 till to-day the mui-tsai system has been the object of unremitting care by the Colonial Government with a view to preventing any possible abuse, etc., etc.

The Colonial Office records at the Record Office are safe after the year 1860.

25.12.41

4.5. in front of you. If along with you ... (fragmented text is not clear)

Edit History

2026-06-14 12:06:21 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
678: the gravest mis-use by opponents of the mui-tsai system, a Chinese social institution which it is not in the power of laws or Governments to abolish.If you feel any doubt about the report on a cursory reading I can point out several objections which need not be set out here.r. Colline! suggested answer will land us sooner or later in showing this report to emissaries of the Society - a procedure of which we have had unhappy experience. The report is 39 years old and therefore not to-day a living issue on which people have a right to information. It was written by a judge on points of law and practice that came before his court. Although it is not expressly stated to be confidential, and although the Colonial Office thought at the time of publishing it, I think the circumstances justify the view that it was a report for the confidential information of the Government of the day. I would therefore prefer, if possible, to take the line that the report is not for publication or communication to any unofficial body.But, before we say this, we must make sure that it has not been published in Hong Kong, where it was printed, which is quite possible.Weight for the moment reply to the Society, as we truthfully can, that our records do not show that any inquiry was held, but that we are consulting the Governor. We should then tell the Governor that we propose, with his concurrence, to take the line that the report is not for publication and to refuse to communicate it to the Society, if they ever get to hear of its existence, but before doing this, we want him to make sure that it has not been published and is not accessible locally. We should also ask him whether there is any record of any inquiry other than Mr. Russell's report, and, if not, we should eventually tell the Society that no inquiry was held but that from 1883 till to-day the mui-tsai system has been the object of unremitting care by the Colonial Government with a view to preventing any possible abuse, etc., etc.The Colonial Office records at the Record Office are safe after the year 1860.25.12.414.5. in front of you. If along with you ... (fragmented text is not clear)
Baseline (Original)
678: the gravest mis-use by opponents of the mui-taci system, a Chinese social institution which it is not in the power of laws or Governments to abolish.If you feel any doubt about the report on a cursory reading I can point out several objections which need not be set out here.r. Colline! suggested answer will land us sooner or later in showing this report to emissaries of the Society a procedure of which we have had unhappy experience. The resort is 39 years old and therefore not to-day a living issue on which people have a right to information. It was written by a judge on points of law and practice that came before his court. Although it is not expressly stated to be confidential, and although the Colonial thought at the time of publishingOffice it, I think the circumstances justify the view that it was a report for the confidential information of the Government of the day. I would therefore prefer, if possible, to take the line that the report is not for publication or communication to any unofficial body.But, before we say this, Te mistake sure that it has not been published in Hong Kong, where it was printed, which is quite possible.·Weight for the moment reply to the Society, as we truthfully can, that our records do not show that any inquiry was held, but that we are consulting the Governor. We should then tell the Governor that we propage, with his concurrence, to take the line that the report is not for publication and to refuse to communicate it to the Society, if: they ever get to hear of its existence, but before doing this, we want him to make sure that it has not been published and is not accessible locally. We should also ask him whether there is any record of any inquiry other than Mr. Russell's report, and, if not, we should eventually tell the Society that no ing iry was held but that from 1883 till to-day the mui-tsal system has been the object of unremitting care by the Colonial Government with a view to preventing any possible abuse, etc., etc.The Colonial Office records at the Record Office are safe after the year 1860.25.12.414.5. Inften with you. If alan wicaster than saqments (if ademen) at andat maWe
2026-06-14 12:06:21 · Baseline
View content

678

:

the gravest mis-use by opponents

of the mui-taci system, a Chinese

social institution which it is not

in the power of laws or Governments

to abolish.

If you feel any doubt

about the report on a cursory

reading I can point out several

objections which need not be set out

here.

r. Colline!

suggested answer

will land us sooner or later in showing

this report to emissaries of the Society

a procedure of which we have had

unhappy experience. The resort is 39

years old and therefore not to-day a

living issue on which people have a

right to information. It was written by

a judge on points of law and practice

that came before his court. Although

it is not expressly stated to be

confidential, and although the Colonial

thought at the time of publishing

Office

it, I think the circumstances justify the

view that it was a report for the

confidential information of the

Government of the day. I would therefore prefer, if possible, to take the line

that the report is not for publication

or communication to any unofficial body.

But, before we say this, Te mistake

sure that it has not been published in

Hong Kong, where it was printed, which

is quite possible.

·

Weight for the moment reply

to the Society, as we truthfully can,

that our records do not show that any

inquiry was held, but that we are

consulting the Governor. We should then

tell the Governor that we propage, with his concurrence, to take the line that the

report is not for publication and to

refuse to communicate it to the Society, if:

they ever get to hear of its existence,

but before doing this, we want him to make

sure that it has not been published and

is not accessible locally. We should also

ask him whether there is any record of any

inquiry other than Mr. Russell's report,

and, if not, we should eventually tell the

Society that no ing iry was held but that

from 1883 till to-day the mui-tsal system

has been the object of unremitting care by

the Colonial Government with a view to

preventing any possible abuse, etc., etc.

The Colonial Office records at

the Record Office are safe after the year

1860.

25.12.41

4.5.

Inften with you. If alan wi

caster than saqments (if ademen) at and

at ma

We

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.