:
:
الباردة
יזל!
[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]
CHINA.
CONFIDENTIAL.
[April 24.]
SECTION 2.
[F 1529/927/10]
No. 1.
Sir B. Alston to the Marquess Curzon of Kedleston (Received April 24.) (No. 141.) My Lord,
Peking, March 6, 1922. A BRIEF announcement appeared in the press yesterday that the Hong Kong seamen's strike had ended. I sincerely hope this may be true. Full reports as to the origin and scope of the strike have doubtless reached your Lordship through the Colonial Office. Its effect has not been felt in North China, and I have not hitherto reported on the subject for lack of any data which might throw new light on its cause and effects, especially as a settlement could only be effected in Hong Kong, and that with the approval and consent of the Hong Kong Governor.
All efforts to extend the strike to Shanghai failed, and this fact alone strongly confirms the view taken from the beginning by the Hong Kong Governor that the strike was a political and not an economic strike. Mr. Clive, who visited Hong Kong and Canton for a few days after leaving Amoy, was satisfied that this was so from evidence shown him at Hong Kong. The original strikers' demands were obviously absurd and unreasonable. The shipowners, however, were conciliatory, and prepared to have their demands submitted to an impartial arbitration board. The only reply was a declaration of the strike. Mr. Clive found the impression generally to prevail that Sun Yat-sen himself was behind the whole movement, which had a strong Bolshevik tinge, in a desperate effort to attain two objects: (1) recognition of himself by the Powers, especially Great Britain; (2) control of labour in the colony. In these circumstances the Hong Kong Governor could have no alternative but to disband the Seamen's Union and to adopt the firm attitude which has ultimately led to a settlement. I enclose two despatches from His Majesty's consul at Swatow regarding the effect of the strike in that port, which, being in the Province of Kwangtung and under the Canton Government was forced to support the strike.
The remarks made by Mr. King about the Amoy boycott movement in the last paragraph of his despatch No. fully endorse the view I have expressed as to the Decessity of getting rid of the boycott before the strike ended.
As I have already had the honour to report by telegram, the boycott was removed on the 1st March.
I have, &c.
B. ALSTON,
P.S.-March 7.--Since writing the above I have received from His Majesty's consul-general at Shanghai a copy of an interesting despatch addressed by him to his Excellency the Governor of Hong Kong, of which copy is enclosed, which throws new light on the reasons for the strike. It is suggested that in return for the support of the Canton Government the men were to pay over 50 per cent. of their additional wages into Sun Yat-sen's fund for meeting the cost of his campaign against the North.
(Copy to Hong Kong.)
B. A.
Enclosure 1 in No. 1.
Consul King to Sir B. Alston.
(No. 3.) Sir,
Swatow, February 11, 1922. I HAVE the honour to report that the seamen's strike, which commenced here on the evening of the 23rd January, continues in full force, and has paralysed the trade of the port
With the exception of a few Japanese steamers, manned by Japanese crews, no vessels are, or have been, running, and there are at the time of writing sixteen vessels laid up in the harbour, their Chinese crews having left them and gone ashore. Of these sixteen vessels the majority is British, seven of the British ships belonging to
[8262 aa-2]
B
299
Page 300Page 301
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.