CO129-514-2 Mui Tsai system- suggested regulations and possible abolition 9-1-1929 - 16-5-1929 — Page 17

17

to the full last time. And the attack is likely to

be all the more bitter on the ground that the

Colonial Office and the local government have been

"fooling the public" all this time.

I do not like publishing the Governor's despatch if

it can possibly be avoided. The despatch might have

been in place in 1922, though we said all this then

without having any affect. There may be, I believe

there is, a lot of truth in what he says.

>

But in

1923 Hong Kong professed to abolish the institution

for the future, while allowing the terms of existing

mui-tsai to run up. (There was of course no possibility

of providing for them otherwise). In 1929 the

Governor contributes a long argument to show that the

institution is a beneficent one. That will not help.

The House of Commons has been told that a report has

been asked for and something will have to be

published. I suggest that we might try laying the

report of Mr.North, the Secretary for Chinese Affairs,

on the table in reply to a question.

There is

nothing in that report to do much harm. But even 80

it will be difficult to avoid giving the despatch.

Part III of the 1923 Ordinance provides for

registration of mui-tsai. That Part does not come

into operation until proclaimed, and the Government

do not want to proclaim it. I think they are right

and should be supported because registration is

hateful to the Chinese and of very little use in the

circumstances of Hong Kong. Mr. North's report will

be helpful in dealing with pressure for registration.

On the whole therefore I would not answer "John

Bull" but try to deal with the question by answers

in Parliament and limited publication of Mr. North's

report.

But