[
    {
        "id": 488564,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-469 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1921 [9-12]",
        "page_number": 305,
        "title": "CO129-469 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1921 [9-12]",
        "content_text": "## Memorial from the Auditor and Assistant Auditors of the Colonial Audit Department at present stationed at Hong Kong to the Secretary of State for the Colonies.\n\n1. We the undersigned members of the Colonial Audit Department at present stationed in Hong Kong, most humbly and respectfully beg to bring to your notice the question of the emoluments which have been provided for the Auditor and Assistant Auditors under the revised salary scheme of 1920, viz. for the Auditor £900 by £25 to £1000 per annum and the Assistant Auditors £620 by £20 to £800 per annum.\n\n2. We would most respectfully draw your attention to the correspondence which took place between the Secretary of State and the Governor of Hongkong in the years 1888 and 1889 commencing with the Secretary of State's Circular Despatch of the 18th September 1888 and the subsequent correspondence which ultimately led to the appointment of the Local Auditor and the transfer of the responsibility of the Audit to the Comptroller and Auditor General.\n\n3. We beg to submit that at the time of the appointment of the present Auditor Hugh Richard Phelips, on the 1st November 1904, he was holding the appointment of Local Auditor to the East Africa Protectorate (now Kenya Colony) where his position was regarded as equal to that of a first class officer, and on appointment to the Local Auditorship of Hongkong presumably ranked as an officer in Class II (vide Hongkong Civil Service List for 1910 page 131 and previous Civil Service Lists). On appointment it was generally understood that the emoluments paid to the Local Auditor were considerably less on account of the fact that part of the time of the Local Auditor...",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-469 - Governor Sir Stubbs - 1921 [9-12].txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 501972,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "page_number": 218,
        "title": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "content_text": "212\n\nTHE following memorandum summarises the history of the Indian question in the Kenya Colony and Protectorate and sets out the general policy which has been laid down by His Majesty's Government, together with the decisions which they have taken on the practical points at issue.\n\nCOLONIAL OFFICE, 23rd July, 1923.\n\nDEVONSHIRE.\n\n(B3-518/T A2)",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 501973,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "page_number": 219,
        "title": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "content_text": "INDIANS IN KENYA.\n\nPART I.\n\n1. THE question of the status of Indians in Kenya has come under the consideration of successive Secretaries of State for the Colonies in one form or another for many years; but with the recent change in the constitutional and political position of India, it has now become a matter of Imperial policy, to which His Majesty's Government have given prolonged and anxious consideration in order to reach a settlement of the existing difficulties.\n\n2. The history of the position of Indians in Kenya up to the end of the late war may be summarised briefly. There have been Indian merchants established along the East African Coast for a long time, and, with the opening up of Uganda and Kenya, and particularly with the development of British administration in those countries during the last thirty-eight years, Indian traders have penetrated into the interior. Many Indian artisans and labourers employed on the construction of the Uganda Railway remained to engage in commerce, and, at the beginning of the present century, the number of Indians in Kenya was greatly increased by the arrival of artisans, clerks and small traders. There is a limited number also of professional men and traders on a large scale who have come from India to the Colony. The agricultural Indian is, however, almost unknown in Kenya.\n\n3. It was the question of the ownership of land in the Highlands which first brought Indian and European interests into conflict. The Highlands, less the area in that region reserved for Africans, amount to about one-tenth of the total area of the Colony and Protectorate, and they are in climate unique in the great belt of Tropical African possessions of the Crown. There were a few European settlers from about 1897, but the encouragement of their immigration into the country as a matter of policy may be dated from 1902. From that time the influx of European settlers increased steadily. The policy of the reservation of the Highlands for Europeans was definitely laid down by the Earl of Elgin, when Secretary of State for the Colonies in 1908.\n\n4. At that time the unofficial element on the Legislative Council was entirely nominated, and in 1909 the experiment was tried of adding an Indian nominated member. This experiment did not prove entirely satisfactory, and the appointment was not renewed when the term of office of the Indian concerned came to an end.\n\n5. In 1913, a distinguished sanitation expert, Professor (now Sir William) Simpson, furnished a report on sanitary matters in Kenya, in which he advocated strongly a system of racial segregation, both in the residential and in the commercial areas of the large towns. His views were accepted, and when the time came for applying them after the war, this question of segregation formed one of the main points at issue between the European and the Indian communities.\n\n6. At the end of the war it was decided to give effect to the long-standing desire of the European community for representation on the Legislative Council by means of elected members. The grant of elective institutions was approved by Viscount Milner in 1919 and took effect at the beginning of 1920. The number of European elected unofficial members of the Council was fixed at eleven, but provision was made for maintaining an official majority in the Council.\n\n7. In 1918, the report of a local Economic Commission of Enquiry into post-war development was published. This contained disparaging references to the Indians then in Kenya, and advocated strict control of future immigration from India. Although the passages in question were repudiated by Lord Milner as not representing the view either of His Majesty's Government or himself, the report undoubtedly added to the feeling of bitterness among the Indians.\n\n8. At the same time Indian sentiment, both in India and Kenya, was becoming more and more articulate, and a large number of claims was put forward by the Indian community in Kenya, including a demand for representation on the Legislative Council on an equality with Europeans. After full consideration and discussion, Lord Milner addressed a despatch on the 21st May, 1920, to the Governor of Kenya, conveying decisions on the various points at issue. That despatch has already been published locally in the \"Official Gazette.\" The decisions may be summarised as follows:-\n\n(a) Arrangements to be made for the election of two Indian members of the Legislative Council on a special franchise.\n\n(b) Arrangements to be made for elective representation of Indians on Municipal Councils.\n\n(c) No restriction on Indian immigration which would place the natives of India at a disadvantage as compared with other immigrants.\n\n(d) Lord Elgin's decision in regard to the reservation of the Highlands for Europeans to be maintained, but reasonable opportunity to be afforded for Indian agricultural settlement in areas of adequate extent and good quality which could be set apart for that purpose without infringement of native rights.\n\n(e) The principle of race segregation to be adhered to in residential areas and, whenever practicable, in commercial areas also.\n\nOther matters were dealt with, but these were of minor importance and need not now be recapitulated.\n\n9. The Government of India reviewed the whole position in a despatch of the 21st October, 1920, which has been published as Command Paper 1311. This despatch reopened the whole question and led to protracted discussion between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and the Secretary of State for India, in which the points at issue were...\n\nPage 213",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 501976,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "page_number": 222,
        "title": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "content_text": "Arabs in Kenya (including officials) were 9,651, 22,822 and 10,102 respectively.\n\nPrimarily, Kenya is an African territory, and His Majesty's Government think it necessary definitely to record their considered opinion that the interests of the African natives must be paramount, and that if, and when, those interests and the interests of the immigrant races should conflict, the former should prevail. Obviously the interests of the other communities, European, Indian or Arab, must severally be safeguarded. Whatever the circumstances in which members of these communities have entered Kenya, there will be no drastic action or reversal of measures already introduced, such as may have been contemplated in some quarters, the result of which might be to destroy or impair the existing interests of those who have already settled in Kenya. But in the administration of Kenya His Majesty's Government regard themselves as exercising a trust on behalf of the African population, and they are unable to delegate or share this trust, the object of which may be defined as the protection and advancement of the native races.\n\nIt is not necessary to attempt to elaborate this position; the lines of development are as yet in certain directions undetermined, and many difficult problems arise which require time for their solution. But there can be no room for doubt that it is the mission of Great Britain to work continuously for the training and education of the Africans towards a higher intellectual, moral and economic level than that which they had reached when the Crown assumed the responsibility for the administration of this territory. At present special consideration is being given to economic development in the native reserves, and within the limits imposed by the finances of the Colony all that is possible for the advancement and development of the Africans, both inside and outside the native reserves, will be done.\n\nHis Majesty's Government desire also to record that in their opinion the annexation of the East Africa Protectorate, which, with the exception of the mainland dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar, has thus become a Colony, known as Kenya Colony, in no way derogates from this fundamental conception of the duty of the Government to the native races. As in the Uganda Protectorate, so in the Kenya Colony, the principle of trusteeship for the natives, no less than in the mandated territory of Tanganyika, is unassailable.\n\nThis paramount duty of trusteeship will continue, as in the past, to be carried out under the Secretary of State for the Colonies by the agents of the Imperial Government, and by them alone.\n\n2. Future Constitutional Evolution.\n\nBefore dealing with the practical points at issue directly connected with the claims of Indians, it is necessary, in view of the declaration of policy enunciated above, to refer to the question of the future constitutional evolution of Kenya.\n\nIt has been suggested that it might be possible for Kenya to advance in the near future on the lines of responsible self-government, subject to the reservation of native affairs. There are, however, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, objections to the adoption in Kenya at this stage of such an arrangement, whether it take the form of removing all matters affecting Africans from consideration in the Council, or the appointment of the Governor as High Commissioner for Native Affairs, or provision for a special veto by the Crown on local legislation which touches native interests; and they are convinced that the existing system of government is in present circumstances best calculated to achieve the aims which they have in view, namely, the unfettered exercise of their trusteeship for the native races and the satisfaction of the legitimate aspirations of other communities resident in the Colony.\n\nHis Majesty's Government cannot but regard the grant of responsible self-government as out of the question within any period of time which need now be taken into consideration. Nor, indeed, would they contemplate yet the possibility of substituting an unofficial majority in the Council for the Government official majority. Hasty action is to be strongly deprecated, and it will be necessary to see how matters develop, especially in regard to African representation, before proposals for so fundamental a change in the Constitution of the Colony can be entertained. Meanwhile, the administration of the Colony will follow the British traditions and principles which have been successful in other Colonies, and progress towards self-government must be left to take the lines which the passage of time and the growth of experience may indicate as being best for the country.\n\n3. Practical Points at Issue.\n\nTurning now to the practical points at issue arising directly out of the claims of Indians domiciled in Kenya, these may be considered under the following heads:—\n\nRepresentation on the Legislative Council, Representation on the Executive Council. Representation on Municipal Councils. Segregation.\n\nReservation of the Highlands for Europeans. Immigration.\n\n4. Representation on the Legislative Council.\n\n(a) Elective System.-In no responsible quarter is it suggested that the Indians in Kenya should not have elective representation upon the Legislative Council of the Colony. The point at issue is the method whereby such elective representation should be secured. There are two alternative methods:\n\n(i) A common electoral roll.\n\n(ii) Communal franchise.\n\nUnder the former system, Kenya would be divided up into a given number of constituencies, in each of which European and Indian voters on the roll would vote together at an election for candidates of either race, and the qualifications for admission to the voters' roll would be the same for Europeans and for Indians. Under the latter system, European and Indian constituencies would be demarcated independently, not necessarily coinciding in number or boundaries;\n\nPage 216",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 501979,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "page_number": 225,
        "title": "CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925",
        "content_text": "the policy of His Majesty's Government to restrict any section of His Majesty's subjects from holding any land in British Protectorates; but he thought, in view of the comparatively limited area of the East Africa Protectorate suitable for European cultivation, that a reasonable discretion should be exercised in dealing with applications for land from natives of India or other non-Europeans. The principle which had been acted upon by the previous Commissioner, namely, that agricultural land in the Highlands should be granted only to Europeans, was approved.\n\nLord Elgin confirmed his decision in 1908, stating that, while it was not consonant with the views of His Majesty's Government to impose any legal restrictions upon any section of the community, grants in the upland area should not, as a matter of administrative convenience, be made to Asiatics.\n\nIt has been claimed on the side of the Indians, first, that Lord Elgin's decision only related to the initial grant of Government land in the Highlands, and that it has since been stretched so as to preclude the transfer of land from Europeans to Indians in that area, and further, that Lord Elgin's statement that no legal restrictions should be imposed has been varied by the terms of the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915.\n\nAt the time of Lord Elgin's decisions, Government land in the East Africa Protectorate was alienated by allotment by the Lands Office, and the Commissioner had the power of veto on all transfer of land between private holders. In view of this general veto, it was unnecessary for Lord Elgin to deal specifically with the question of transfer, and, although no public statement was made on the point, it is clear that the question of land in the East Africa Protectorate was considered by his successors and the local authorities on the basis that the reservation of the Highlands to Europeans must cover transfer as well as original grant from the Crown.\n\nIn the consideration of land policy which led to the enactment of the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915, it was decided:\n\n(a) To substitute for the system of selling land by allotment the system of selling leases at public auction.\n\n(b) To abolish the Governor's general power of veto on transfer, which was found to interfere unduly with the lessee's ability to deal with his land by mortgage, &c.\n\nIn order to apply these decisions in a manner consistent with the principle of the reservation of the Highlands to Europeans, it was found necessary to provide that, in announcing the conditions of the sale of particular farms, the Land Officer should state (in cases where the point arose) whether the bidding at the auction was limited to Europeans or not. To deal with the case of transfer it was necessary to retain, in a modified form, the Governor's power of veto, and this matter was very fully considered by Mr. Harcourt (the late Viscount Harcourt), who was Secretary of State at the time. He refused to agree to a veto on transfers between Europeans and Asiatics involving a definite racial discrimination; but, in order not only to deal with the particular case of the Highlands, but at the same time to secure protection for non-European land-holders (particularly in the coast strip which now forms the Kenya Protectorate) against their being victimised by concession hunters, he approved of provision being made to retain the power of veto on transfers between persons of different races.\n\nPage 17\n\nIt will be observed that the passages in the Crown Lands Ordinance of 1915 which have been complained of raised no new principle, but merely maintained the principle of past practice. Nor can it be claimed that they amount to legal discrimination against Indians, for it would be possible for the Executive Government to grant land in the Highlands to an Asiatic, or to approve of the transfer of land from a European to an Asiatic, without any alteration in the existing law.\n\nIn adhering to the position adopted by his predecessors in this matter, Lord Milner, when Secretary of State, made it clear that the reservation of a certain area for Europeans implied that a similar reservation should be available for Indians who wished to take up agricultural land, and he contemplated a reservation of such land in the Lowlands of Kenya, on the understanding that the land offered to Indian settlers would be examined as to its suitability and adequacy by a representative whom the Indian Government might send.\n\nAfter reviewing the history of this question and taking into consideration the facts that during the last fifteen years European British subjects have been encouraged to develop the Highlands and that during that period settlers have taken up land in the Highlands on this understanding, His Majesty's Government have decided that the existing practice must be maintained as regards both initial grants and transfers.\n\nAn area of land in the Lowlands which can be set aside without infringing on native reserves and without conflicting with native requirements will be temporarily reserved in order that it may be ascertained by experience what demand there is for agricultural land on the part of Indians who will give suitable guarantees of their intention to develop the land themselves. After the expiration of a limited period, the reservation of this area in the Lowlands will be reconsidered in the light of the experience so gained.\n\n9. Immigration.\n\nFinally the question of immigration into Kenya has been canvassed both by the Europeans and by the Indians. It is sufficient to say that the line taken has varied with the point of view, and it is not necessary to present the arguments which have been advanced.\n\nIt may be stated definitely that only in extreme circumstances could His Majesty's Government contemplate legislation designed to exclude from a British Colony immigrants from any other part of the British Empire. Such racial discrimination in immigration regulations, whether specific or implied, would not be in accord with the\n\nPage 219",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-491 - Public Offices - 1925.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 515887,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-511-22 Annual general report 1927 12-10-1928 - 26-11-1928",
        "page_number": 24,
        "title": "CO129-511-22 Annual general report 1927 12-10-1928 - 26-11-1928",
        "content_text": "32\n\nINSTITUTIONS.\n\nAmong institutions recognised and encouraged, but not to any considerable extent supported by Government may be mentioned the Pó Leung Kuk, the Eyre Refuge, the City Hall, and the Chinese Public Dispensaries.\n\nThe Pó Leung Kuk is a Chinese Society founded in 1878 for it was the suppression of kidnapping and traffic in human beings.\n\nIn 1893 and incorporated it is presided over by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs and not more than twelve directors nominated by the Governor. The actual management is entrusted to a committee elected annually by the members of the Society. The Society's buildings have been declared a Refuge under the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance, and almost all women and girls detained by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs under that Ordinance are sent to the Po Leung Kuk. During 1926 the number of persons admitted was 299 and at the close of the year 45 remained under the care of the Society. The inmates are under the immediate charge of a Chinese matron, and instruction is given them by the matron and a Chinese teacher in elementary subjects and in needlework.\n\nThe Chinese Public Dispensaries are institutions maintained in order to provide the Chinese with the services of doctors, whose certificates will be accepted by the Registrar of Deaths, and with the services of interpreters, who can assist the inmates of houses, where a case of infectious disease has occurred. Coolies are engaged and ambulances and dead vans provided in order to remove cases of infectious disease to the Infectious Diseases Hospital and dead bodies to the Mortuary. The Dispensaries receive sick infants and send them to one or other of the Convents and arrange for the burial of dead infants. Free advice and medicine are given and patients are attended at their houses.\n\nThere are eight Dispensaries in existence. The Government makes an annual grant of $2,000, and the rest of the cost is defrayed by voluntary subscription. The Dispensaries are conducted by committees under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs.\n\nThe Tung Wa Hospital, opened in 1872, is mainly supported by the voluntary subscriptions of Chinese, but receives an annual grant of $8,000 from the Government. Only Chinese are treated in this institution. Various other services not appertaining to a hospital are performed by the institution, such as the free burial of the poor, the repatriation of destitutes, the maintenance of free vernacular schools, and the organisation of charitable relief in emergencies: Chinese as well as European methods of treatment are employed in accordance with the wishes expressed by the patients or their friends. Over half the number are now treated by Western methods. The hospital is managed by a committee of Chinese gentlemen annually elected, their appointment being submitted to the Governor for confirmation.\n\nCOLONIAL ANNUAL REPORTS.\n\nH.M. Stationery Office publishes the Annual Reports on British Colonies and Protectorates. These Reports appear each year and they are supplied at the Subscription price of 40s. per annum. Individual Reports may also be purchased and standing orders placed for their annual supply.\n\nBAHAMAS BARBADOS.\n\nBASUTOLAND.\n\nBECHUANALAND PROTECTORATE.\n\nBERMUDA.\n\nBRITISH GUIANA.\n\nBRITISH HONDURAS.\n\nBRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PRO-\n\nTECTORATE.\n\nBRUNEI, STATE OF.\n\nCAYMAN ISLANDS (JAMAICA).\n\nCEYLON.\n\nCOLONIAL SURVEY COMMITTEE\n\nREPORT.\n\nCYPRUS.\n\nFALKLAND ISLANDS.\n\nFEDERATED MALAY STATES.\n\nFIJI\n\nGAMBIA.\n\nGIBRALTAR.\n\nGILBERT & ELLICE ISLANDS.\n\nGOLD COAST.\n\nGRENADA.\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nJAMAICA.\n\nKENYA COLONY & PROTECTORATE.\n\nLEEWARD ISLANDS.\n\nMAURITIUS.\n\nNEW HEBRIDES.\n\nNIGERIA.\n\nNORTHERN RHODESIA.\n\nNYASALAND.\n\nST. HELENA.\n\nST. LUCIA.\n\nST. VINCENT.\n\nSEYCHELLES.\n\nSIERRA LEONE.\n\nSOMALILAND.\n\nSTRAITS SETTLEMENTS.\n\nSWAZILAND.\n\nTONGAN ISLANDS PROTECTORATE.\n\nTRINIDAD & TOBAGO.\n\nTURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS.\n\nUGANDA.\n\nUNFEDERATED MALAY\n\nSTATES UNDER BRITISH PROTECTION.\n\nWEI-HAI-WEI.\n\nZANZIBAR PROTECTORATE.\n\nMANDATED TERRITORIES.\n\nAnnual Reports are published on the undermentioned territories administered by H.M. Government under mandate from the League of Nations.\n\nBRITISH CAMEROONS.\n\nBRITISH TOGOLAND.\n\nIRAQ.\n\nPALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN.\n\nTANGANYIKA TERRITORY.\n\nFor further particulars as to the latest reports and prices apply to any of the SALE OFFICES OF H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE.\n\nCROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES. Publications issued by the Governments of British Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories, can be obtained from the CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES, 4, Millbank, Westminster, S.W.1.\n\nThey include Departmental Reports, Laws, Handbooks, etc.\n\n3330\n\n41",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-511-22 Annual general report 1927 12-10-1928 - 26-11-1928.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 528931,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-532-3 Mui Tsai system 4-12-1930 - 9-11-1931",
        "page_number": 48,
        "title": "CO129-532-3 Mui Tsai system 4-12-1930 - 9-11-1931",
        "content_text": "## Slavery\n\n[ LORDS ] Mui-tsai can now be brought into the Colony, and the number not registered is steadily diminishing by natural causes, the return of girls to their parents, marriage, death, etc. The number remaining on the register on November 30, 1930, was just over 4,000. In fact, the mui-tsai custom has now been abolished in Hong-kong. All suggestions of a servile status have been removed, and the girls on the mui-tsai register are free and in the position of paid domestic servants.\n\nThe most rev. Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury asked me two questions, first of all as to how far this proposal of registration had been completed. The information I have is that it is completed at the present time. Then he asked me a very important and a very practical question about the appointment of additional inspectors.\n\nI think that Lord Lugard referred to another point. I am not quite certain that I appreciated it, but I think so. A book was lately published suggesting that slave dealing was rife in Kenya and Uganda and on the British side of the border. Information was asked for among the officials in these districts and the suggestion was absolutely and totally denied. It was said that there was no foundation for it whatever. Of course, as we all know, slaves escape over the border and provision is made as far as possible that they shall not be driven back to their ancient owners—I think that would be the right expression—in Abyssinia. Additional inspectors are to be appointed with the very purpose of ensuring that the directions which come from the Colonial Office will be in fact carried out, and completely carried out.\n\nThe next question he asked me was in regard to Abyssinia. I am one of those who have had the advantage of seeing a good deal of Ras Tafari and let me express my agreement with the view stated, I think by all three speakers who have preceded me, that he really is in earnest, and desires to put an end to, or at least to put some substantial check upon, slavery in Abyssinia. But the difficulty is that there slaves are looked upon as part of the important property of the Governors of a particular district. It is undoubtedly a matter of great difficulty, but he will do his best, I believe, and in time I hope that the difficulties which now exist in Abyssinia may be modified, or even after a period of time be brought to an end.\n\nI should like to mention two other points in regard to Abyssinia. In the south-west of Ethiopia, or Abyssinia, and what is called the borderland between the Sudan and the south-west, there is a large country as regards area and acreage which has been inhabited from time immemorial, I suppose, by half-civilised and nearly independent tribes. That country has now become largely desolated because these tribes have fought with one another in order by tribal raids to obtain slaves for purposes of export and sale. The noble Earl was quite right, of course, that is a terrible condition of affairs. I was reading the other day a book by the Consul who has been there lately, and it shows a terrible condition of devastation in this district.\n\nThat no doubt arises from the attempt of the British Government officials in Kenya and Uganda and Tanganyika to do the best they can to help the escaped slaves and give them sufficient areas of land for their occupation and preserve them against return to their old degraded positions. I imagine that everyone thinks that is the right thing to do, and indeed no British Government could adopt any policy except the one which I have indicated. On the other side, the question arises of the sea traffic, or the export of slaves across the Red Sea.\n\nPerhaps I ought to have added, one word as to the raiding by these tribes. That, no doubt, has been rendered largely possible by the export of arms which are purchased by the banditti and raiders in that country, and any step which could be taken to prevent that export of arms would be, in my opinion, of great value in suppressing this terrible slave traffic.\n\nI have asked particularly for information as regards the export of slaves across the Red Sea. A book has been published which I have read myself, although I have forgotten the title for the moment, in which it was shown that whatever precautions were taken slaves could be carried across in small numbers, in the guise very often of being part of the crew of the dhow.\n\nI was asked as to our action with Italy and France in this matter. We have acted in the most friendly co-operative manner with Italy and France. We have two sloops in the Red Sea and they act most cordially with the vessels of Italy and France. Our experience—this, I think, is very remarkable—is that since 1922, although there has been constant supervision, we have not, in fact, come across any case of the export of slaves by sea from Abyssinia to Arabia. I do not mean to say that some have not gone across—they probably have, because it is not a difficult trade for smugglers—but no large numbers have gone, and so far as our ships are concerned, the information which I have been given is that since 1922 no case has arisen where they have found this export of slaves going on from the Abyssinian coast across the Red Sea to Arabia on the other side.\n\nThere is one other point I was asked about and that is the case of Arabia. Of course, there again it must be a question of international arrangement. Arabia is not a member of the League of Nations and therefore is not in the same position as China. Through centuries of time, from time immemorial, there has been a very large amount of slavery in Arabia, and no doubt it still exists. If the noble Earl or His Grace the Lord Archbishop would make any practical suggestion at any time by which we could diminish the number of slaves or improve their condition in Arabia, every member of His Majesty's Government would cordially support any effective proposal of that kind.\n\nI think those are all the instances and illustrations about which I was asked, with the exception of Liberia. The question of Liberia has been brought forward internationally at Geneva, and there is also in connection with it the question of United States action about which Lord Lugard spoke so that rather than deal with it partially myself I have asked Viscount Cecil to deal with the matter as a whole. I am sure that would be the most effective way of bringing it to the notice of your Lordships. I do not think that any other question has been asked me about slavery in these various districts, but I do not want in any way to leave unanswered any question.\n\nI say that for two reasons. Firstly, I am anxious that all publicity should be given; and secondly, that the sincerity—if I may use that word—of the Government may be shown, a sincerity which is not political, which does not specially affect this Government, but a sincerity which I think represents the public opinion of Great Britain, upon this point, and which has been represented substantially since the year 1772, and certainly since the year 1833.\n\nThere is one point I should like to mention about the Act of 1833. The Act of 1833 did not affect slavery in protected States or in our Protectorates, but now, I believe, in every instance protection has been given. In all cases where the Act of 1833 does not run, because Protectorates and Protected States were not included in it, there has been legislation applicable to the particular districts for the purpose and object, which to a great extent has succeeded, of putting an end to those brutal conditions of ownership in the form of slavery. It was a pleasurable statistic which Lord Buxton gave us as regards the diminution of slavery in Tanganyika of about 450,000 within recent times, and as to the possibility of direct British influence. I am convinced that this Government—I do not say that there is any special virtue in it as well as any Government representing Great Britain, will do all in their power to put an end to what is regarded by us all as an injurious and odious ownership and traffic.\n\nOne point I think I have not answered, but Lord Lugard will tell me if I have misapprehended him—namely, the question of forced labour. The particular question asked me to-day has reference to slavery, but I agree very much with what Lord Cromer said—I heard him say it often in this House and always agreed with him—that under certain conditions forced labour brings about a status practically similar to that of slavery itself. Of course a great deal depends on how forced labour is imposed and the purpose for which it is used.\n\n## Page 1095\n\n## Slavery\n\n[ 22 JULY 1931 ]\n\n#I, L No. 81\n\n## Slavery\n\n1036",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-532-3 Mui Tsai system 4-12-1930 - 9-11-1931.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 537258,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-543-3 Leave and passage regulations 13-1-1933 - 11-9-1933",
        "page_number": 35,
        "title": "CO129-543-3 Leave and passage regulations 13-1-1933 - 11-9-1933",
        "content_text": "## \n\n3. Your Petitioners possess such qualifications, namely, the said Arthur Jackson the qualifications of B.Sc. and Ph.D., and the said John Lewis Tetley the qualifications of B.A. (Cantab.) and A.I.C.\n\n10. That the principle referred to in the preceding paragraph is generally recognised in the Colonial Service appears to be amply indicated by the provisions made for First Class passages for Officers holding in other Colonies &c. appointments similar to those held by Your Petitioners.\n\nThe following table shows the position in this and other Colonies, etc.:-\n\n| Colony | Appointment | Maximum Salary | Provision of Passages |\n| --- | --- | --- | --- |\n| EASTERN COLONIES & PROTECTORATES |  |  |  |\n| Ceylon | Govt. Analyst | £1,200 | First |\n| Hong Kong | Deputy Govt. Analyst | £960 | First |\n| Straits Settlements | Govt. Analyst | £1,050 | First |\n| Federated Malay States | 2 Asst. Analysts | £800 | Second |\n|  | Govt. Analyst | £1,400 | First |\n|  | 6 Asst. Analysts | £1,120 | First |\n|  | Chief Chemist | £1,400 | First |\n|  | 3 Asst. Chemists | £1,120 | First |\n| EAST AFRICA |  |  |  |\n| Kenya | 1 Analyst | £840 | (First to |\n|  | 1 Biochemist | £840 | Tanganyika Territory) |\n| Tanganyika Territory | 1 Analyst | £720 | (all officers whose scales go above £600 |\n| Uganda | 1 Analyst | £840 |  |\n| Zanzibar | 1 Asst. Chemist | £840 |  |\n| WEST AFRICA |  |  |  |\n| Nigeria | Govt. Analyst | £960 | First |\n|  | Asst. Analyst | £920 | First |\n|  | Water Chemist | £920 | First |",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-543-3 Leave and passage regulations 13-1-1933 - 11-9-1933.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 546299,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-550-3 Empire Air Mail Services- cost of participation to be exempted from assessment for military contributions... 19-10-1934 - 17-1-1935",
        "page_number": 21,
        "title": "CO129-550-3 Empire Air Mail Services- cost of participation to be exempted from assessment for military contributions... 19-10-1934 - 17-1-1935",
        "content_text": "32592/34\n\n134 General\n\nSunt\n\n21\n\nCEYLON.\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nSTRAITS SETTLEMENTS.\n\nMALAY STATES.\n\n3\n\n4\n\nKENYA.\n\nthenx\n\n7\n\nUGANDA PROTECTORATE.\n\nTANGANYIKA TERRITORY.\n\nNYASALAND.\n\nNORTHERN RHODESIA.\n\nCONFIDENTIAL.\n\nDOWNING STREET,\n\n#\n\n1 to 3 by AIR MAIL 19 October, 1934.\n\n458\n\n23 LOT 1934\n\nMemo\n\nSir,\n\nI have the honour to inform you that His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have been considering the possibility of expanding and speeding up the existing Empire Air Mail Services. They feel that the striking progress in aeronautical technique which has been achieved in recent years has made it practicable to formulate for the consideration of all the parts of the Empire concerned an Air Mail Scheme under which all Empire first-class mail matter passing between countries served by the existing Empire air routes would be conveyed by air. A scheme of this nature has now been drawn up and is outlined in some detail in the enclosed memorandum.\n\nSummarised briefly the main features of the scheme are as follows:-\n\n(i) As from 1937 all Empire first-class external mail (except in the case of those Empire countries which cannot, at present, be connected with the United Kingdom by air services) would be carried by air. This would represent an epoch-making advance in the system of Imperial communications but the successful inauguration of the scheme would depend upon its receiving the whole-hearted support of all the Empire countries\n\nTHE OFFICER ADMINISTERING\n\nTHE GOVERNMENT OF",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-550-3 Empire Air Mail Services- cost of participation to be exempted from assessment for military contributions... 19-10-1934 - 17-1-1935.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 559692,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-569-7 Revision of salaries 6-7-1938 - 11-10-1938",
        "page_number": 181,
        "title": "CO129-569-7 Revision of salaries 6-7-1938 - 11-10-1938",
        "content_text": "1791\n\nRegulations.\n\nPensions, etc., to be charged on revenue and assets of the Colony,\n\nPensions, etc. not of right.\n\nCertificate of conduct.\n\nWithholding\n\n2\n\n(ii) in respect of other public service, emoluments which count for pension in accordance with the law or regulations in force in such service.\n\n(d) \"Public service\" means service in a civil capacity under the Government of this Colony or the Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, or the Government of India or of any British Dominion, Colony or Protectorate or a territory under a British Mandate, or under the Board of Education for England and Wales, or the Crown Agents for the Colonies, or the Colonial Audit Department (Home Establishment), or the Kenya and Uganda Railways and Harbour Administration, and any such other service as the Secretary of State may determine to be \"public service\" for the purpose of any provision of this Ordinance or of the regulations made thereunder.\n\nService as a Governor or High Commissioner of a British Dominion, Colony or Protectorate, or a territory under a British Mandate, or as a Governor in India shall be deemed to be public service except for the purposes of computation of pension or gratuity and of section 11 of this Ordinance;\n\n(e) \"Other public service\" means public service not under the Government of this Colony.\n\n3.(1) It shall be lawful for the Governor in Council with the sanction of the Secretary of State to make regulations for the granting of pensions, gratuities and other allowances to persons who have been in the public service of this Colony.\n\n(2) Every such regulation shall be laid before the Legislative Council and shall be published in the Gazette,\n\n4. There shall be charged on and paid out of the General revenue and assets of the Colony all such sums of money as may from time to time be granted by way of pension, gratuity or other allowance under this Ordinance.\n\n5.--(1) No officer shall have an absolute right to compensation for past services or to any pension, gratuity or other allowance under this Ordinance, nor shall anything in this Ordinance contained limit the right of the Crown or the Government to dismiss any officer without compensation.\n\n(2) No officer shall be granted a pension, gratuity or other allowance without a certificate to the effect that he has discharged the duties of his office with such diligence and fidelity as to justify the grant to him of such pension, gratuity or other allowance. The certificate shall be given by the Governor in the case of the Colonial Secretary or a judge, by the Colonial Secretary in the case of any other head of a department, and by the head of the officer's department in other cases.\n\n(3) Where it is established to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that an officer has been guilty of negligence, irregularity or misconduct, the pension, gratuity or other allowance may be reduced or altogether withheld.\n\n6. No pension, gratuity or other allowance shall be granted under this Ordinance to any officer—\n\n(a) in respect of any service in any of the following capacities, namely, Private Secretary or Aide-de-Camp to the Governor, Private Secretary or clerk to a judge, unless in the permanent public service of this Colony, apprentice in a public department, volunteer, normal student, student in training or pupil teacher, or\n\n(b) in respect of any service while on probation or agreement, unless without break of service he is confirmed in a pensionable office in this Colony or in an office in other public service which is at the time of confirmation pensionable under the law or regulations in force relating to such service, or\n\n(c) if he held a pensionable office in the service on the 1st day of January, 1894, in respect of any service while under the age of sixteen years, or\n\n(d) if he did not hold such pensionable office on the 1st day of January, 1894, in respect of any service while under the age of eighteen years.\n\n7. Except as expressly provided in the Police Force Ordinance, 1900, as amended by the Police Force Amendment Ordinances, 1929 and 1930 and by section 21 of this Ordinance, no pension, gratuity or other allowance shall be granted under this Ordinance to any member of the Police Force or member of the civilian staff referred to in the said Ordinance.\n\n8. No pension, gratuity or other allowance shall be granted under this Ordinance to any officer who has retired from the public service of this Colony, other than a Governor, unless he has retired—\n\n(a) on or after attaining the age of fifty-five years, or in the case of transfer to other public service, on or after attaining the age at which an officer is permitted by the law or regulations in force relating to the service in which he is last employed to retire on pension, gratuity or other allowance; or\n\n(b) with the consent of the Governor on or after attaining the age of fifty years; or\n\n(c) on or after attaining the age of fifty years, with not less than fifteen years service in this Colony, if he be an Indian subordinate officer of the Prison Department, lady medical officer, lady serving in the Education Department, European attendant at a Government mental hospital, or nurse (other than a European matron or European nursing sister referred to in paragraph (d) of this section) in a Government Hospital; or\n\n(d) on attaining the age of fifty years, if she be a European matron or European nursing sister, of a Government Hospital, who has been in the service of this Colony for a period of ten years, or, on attaining any less age if she has been in such service for a period of twenty years; or\n\n(e) on a certificate from the head of his department and from three Government medical officers that he is incapable, by reason of some infirmity of mind or body, of discharging the duties of his office and that such infirmity is likely to be permanent:\n\npension, be granted.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-569-7 Revision of salaries 6-7-1938 - 11-10-1938.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 563115,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-573-7 Education- government grants to vernacular schools 30-5-1938 - 28-7-1938",
        "page_number": 16,
        "title": "CO129-573-7 Education- government grants to vernacular schools 30-5-1938 - 28-7-1938",
        "content_text": "## COLONIAL ANNUAL REPORTS\n\nH.M. Stationery Office publishes the Annual Reports on British Colonies and Protectorates. These Reports appear each year and they are supplied at the Subscription price of 40s. per annum. (This rate does not include Mandated Territories.) Individual Reports may also be purchased and standing orders placed for their annual supply.\n\nBAHAMAS. BARBADOS.  \nBASUTOLAND.  \nBECHUANALAND PROTECTORATE.  \nBERMUDA.  \nBRITISH GUIANA.  \nBRITISH HONDURAS.  \nBRITISH SOLOMON ISLANDS PROTECTORATE.  \nBRUNEI, STATE OF  \nCAYMAN ISLANDS (JAMAICA). CEYLON.  \nCOLONIAL SURVEY COMMITTEE REPORT.  \nCYPRUS.  \nFALKLAND ISLANDS,  \nFEDERATED MALAY STATES.  \nFIJI.  \nGAMBIA.  \nGIBRALTAR.  \nGILBERT & ELLICE ISLANDS.  \nGOLD COAST.  \nGRENADA.  \nHONG KONG.  \nJAMAICA.  \nJOHORE.  \nKEDAH AND PERLIS.  \nKELANTAN.  \nKENYA COLONY & PROTECTORATE. LEEWARD ISLANDS.  \nMAURITIUS.  \nNEW HEBRIDES. NIGERIA.  \nNORTHERN RHODESIA.  \nNYASALAND.  \nST. HELENA.  \nST. LUCIA.  \nST. VINCENT.  \nSEYCHELLES.  \nSIERRA LEONE.  \nSOMALILAND.  \nSTRAITS SETTLEMENTS.  \nSWAZILAND,  \nTONGAN ISLANDS PROTECTORATE. TRENGGANU.  \nTRINIDAD & TOBAGO.  \nTURKS & CAICOS ISLANDS, UGANDA.  \nZANZIBAR PROTECTORATE.\n\n## MANDATED TERRITORIES\n\nAnnual Reports are published on the undermentioned territories administered by H.M. Government under mandate from the League of Nations.\n\nBRITISH CAMEROONS.  \nBRITISH TOGOLAND.  \nPALESTINE AND TRANS-JORDAN. TANGANYIKA TERRITORY.\n\nFor further particulars as to the latest reports and prices apply to any of the  \nSALE OFFICES OF H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE.\n\n## CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES\n\nPublications issued by the Governments of British Colonies, Protectorates, and Mandated Territories, can be obtained from the CROWN AGENTS FOR THE COLONIES, 4, Millbank, Westminster, S.W.1. They include Departmental Reports, Laws, Handbooks, etc.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-573-7 Education- government grants to vernacular schools 30-5-1938 - 28-7-1938.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 563634,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-575-11 Education Department- 22-12-1938 - 30-5-1939",
        "page_number": 27,
        "title": "CO129-575-11 Education Department- 22-12-1938 - 30-5-1939",
        "content_text": "## 29\n\n6 \n\nMR. MAYHEW said the Committee would note with much appreciation that the newly appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University and the Education Department were co-operating to arrive at a common policy in education. This was an important development.\n\nIn reply to a question from MR. SCOTT, MR. BURNEY said that the new institution which it was proposed to establish at Taipo might make use of the buildings of the present Normal school. The training would be given on entirely different lines.\n\nThe Committee expressed an earnest hope that the necessary money would be forthcoming.\n\nThe Report was approved in the light of the foregoing discussion.\n\nNyasaland Protectorate: Secondary Education for Africans. (`A.C.E.C. 37/38`).—THE CHAIRMAN outlined the position as given in the paper under discussion. The question had arisen whether Secondary education of Africans should be controlled entirely by the Government, by Missions, or by a Governing body with representatives of both sides upon it. Mr. Lacey, the Director of Education, had informed the Sub-Committee that there was no possibility of a federation of the non-Roman Missions for joint control of a Secondary school. It had therefore been decided that a Senior school, with pupils aged 16-20, should be maintained by the Government, and two Junior schools be supported by the Missions. Mr. Dougall believed, however, that a grave mistake had been made as regards the alleged unwillingness of Missions in Nyasaland to combine in supporting a joint school, and that there would be no opposition to such an undertaking from the Missions at home. He believed that the Sub-Committee had been under a misapprehension as to the difficulties. The Governor had accordingly been asked for a definite assurance that the proposals for a joint school had been considered by the non-Roman Missions in Nyasaland but not approved by them. In reply, he had received the following wire:\n\nPlease see paragraph 5 and paragraph 6 of the enclosure of your despatch of the 27th October, 1937, No. 439. In August this year, non-Roman Catholic missions re-affirmed that they are not able to form any legal federation which would satisfy the requirements of the Government in providing governing bodies for schools. Lacey concurs.\n\nThis seemed to make the position clear.\n\nMISS GIBSON stated that the Governor's telegram made the matter rather obscure, but that letters received from Missions in Nyasaland indicated that the Missions had been told that the joint scheme proposed was unacceptable to the Government, and that they had heard no more about it. For that reason, they had agreed to the proposed scheme. She knew of no reason why the Missions could not come together. The Mission Boards at home were prepared to consider a joint scheme. In view of what the Governor had said, it was difficult to understand the position.\n\nMR. SCOTT said he assumed such a joint-school would be somewhat on the lines of the Alliance High School at Kikuyu, in Kenya. He considered it should have been feasible for the Missions to have co-operated in Nyasaland. Difficulties had been overcome in Kenya. But the number and variety of Missions in Nyasaland might be an obstacle.\n\nLORD DUFFERIN said it might be a question of personalities in Nyasaland.\n\nMISS GIBSON remarked that letters supporting the proposal had been received from the Livingstonia Mission, which was the Mission most seriously concerned. The Mission was a long distance from Zomba, which might explain the discrepancy. Ecclesiastical differences might be greater in Nyasaland than in Kenya. Co-operation was not entirely impossible, as the Universities Mission were prepared to negotiate.\n\nMR. MAYHEW suggested that the scheme which the Committee had before them should be examined on the assumption that joint control was impossible, making it clear that if it was found later that joint control was possible, the scheme might be modified.\n\nMR. SCOTT considered the scheme had been modified by the last despatch. The fact that there were going to be two junior Secondary schools established at once indicated that the action of the Government would be delayed in establishing a Secondary school for post-juniors.\n\nMR. SCOTT remarked that it seemed to remove the Government's proposal from the sphere of action. It might give the Missions time to continue with the junior schools and combine them into one.\n\nMR. MAYHEW stated that the lines laid down for the Secondary school were the same as those which had been considered by the Committee and the Sub-Committee.\n\n7 \n\nIf the Committee could give general approval of the type of Secondary education proposed, it would enable a start to be made with the work.\n\nIt was pointed out that many Secondary schools gave, in addition to a commercial course, and a course for those who might be going to do agricultural work, etc., a course useful for future teachers; if such a course had not already been considered, it required attention.\n\nPROFESSOR MACKINNON said too much emphasis was laid on provision for cheap clerical labour.\n\nMR. MAYHEW replied that the Sub-Committee had drawn attention to this. They had considered Africans had a right to Secondary Education for its own sake and not merely from the economic point of view. He believed Mr. Lacey's notes bore testimony to that if the Governor's despatch did not.\n\nMR. SCOTT remarked that in establishing training classes at Secondary schools, a serious difficulty was often experienced in providing proper teaching practice for the students. This had been the case with the Alliance High school. He believed this difficulty could be overcome. The Committee might express a hope that when the students had done their two years' Secondary work, some at least would be trained at that stage for a slightly better type of teacher for Primary schools.\n\nMR. MAYHEW said very valuable work on those lines was being done at Achimota. The Jeanes training centre in Nyasaland also trained teachers. The Sub-Committee had drawn attention to the excessive length at present of the Nyasaland course. They had been told it would be difficult to bring pupils into the Secondary course at 14 or 15 years of age, and that sometimes they would not complete their Secondary education until 21. The Sub-Committee had asked whether the preparatory classes could not be attached to the Secondary school in order to shorten this stage.\n\nMR. SCOTT remarked that too much attention was apt to be paid to the age of admission. With African education, so young people sometimes started their Secondary education at 19 or 20. As the Primary schools improved, so the age of entry at the Secondary school was lowered. Pupils often did not attend Primary schools until the age of 10 or 11.\n\nSchool attendance was very irregular, and this could not be avoided. He could not find any figures as to the number of pupils who had been admitted to the Secondary course. He was not satisfied that there was a sufficient demand to fill satisfactorily one Secondary course, and now it was proposed to start two Secondary courses.\n\nDR. FIRTH referred to Secondary education for boys and the large sum of money that was being spent on agricultural administration under a trained African personnel. In some areas in Nyasaland, agriculture was primarily in the hands of the women, and women of rank took a leading part. If a man controlled agriculture, it did not appear to the native women as being his sphere. Perhaps, however, technical instruction was given at a primary stage. There was no recognition of this in the papers under discussion.\n\nMR. SCOTT said he did not know what the social arrangements were in Nyasaland. Throughout East Africa generally, the large bulk of agriculture was done by the women; none the less, the supervision and the organization was undertaken by the men. Agriculture might be taught in the course of general Secondary education. He wondered if Secondary education of the girls had been considered in any stage. There was no reference to it in the papers.\n\nDR. ESDAILE stated that when the Commission on Higher Education in Uganda had received evidence from various territories, they had been told there was no Secondary education for women, but that the girls at the schools had a certain amount of elementary agricultural training. The Commission had found difficulty in ascertaining the number of boys who would wish to undertake Secondary education.\n\nThe Committee approved the proposals contained in the despatch subject to further local consideration of the points mentioned in the foregoing discussion.\n\n## 10. Education Policy in Somaliland. (`A.C.E.C. 35`, `35A`, `35B(38)`).—LORD DUFFERIN said the main question was whether written Somali should be a compulsory subject or not. There was a great deal of opposition to the teaching of written Somali, and the Governor was of the opinion that this opposition would grow. He had therefore suggested postponement of the introduction of written Somali. The Secretary of State had not agreed to this but had already given instructions that written Somali should be an optional subject and Arabic the main instrument of instruction, both written and verbal.\n\n## 30",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-575-11 Education Department- 22-12-1938 - 30-5-1939.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 571789,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-587-10 Governor's power to make and execute grants of Crown lands 20-5-1940 - 17-10-1940",
        "page_number": 6,
        "title": "CO129-587-10 Governor's power to make and execute grants of Crown lands 20-5-1940 - 17-10-1940",
        "content_text": "## xart: 2/2)\n\nThe Murya Colony Amb1921 the Janga\n\n... call (Drop on then of Lands) on 66\n\n1927 bulan of the Kenya Protectorate (mb1920 and Article XVI of the \n\n6\n\nLetters Patent of 11 Sept. 1920\n\n**Confident.**\n\nJurgoin\n\n11/9/40.\n\nI think\n\n... had better act the form\n\nin the legislation of my\n\nelsewhere\n\n... minti, excepting legislation as\n\nwith Kenya\n\n... suai\n\nouttum\n\nt.\n\ndiag drip.\n\n17\n\n41\n\ncorrespondence.\n\n20 Jhula\n\n21.9.\n\n2. 20 Hong Kong. No: 299 - (Wenc. as in draft)\n\n1 Ausdr bars?\n\n17 OCT 1940\n\n... \n\n17/2\n\nM\n\nNo reply get t(2) - ? mit & months.\n\nWant six if necessary\n\n`1AB29/17/1`",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-587-10 Governor's power to make and execute grants of Crown lands 20-5-1940 - 17-10-1940.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 571791,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-587-10 Governor's power to make and execute grants of Crown lands 20-5-1940 - 17-10-1940",
        "page_number": 8,
        "title": "CO129-587-10 Governor's power to make and execute grants of Crown lands 20-5-1940 - 17-10-1940",
        "content_text": "## 8\n\n\nthe British Guiana Crown Grants (Governor's Signature) Ordinance, 1930. Section 8 of the Nyasaland Ordinance provides that the Lands Officer may execute on behalf of the Governor conveyances and other documents. Under the proviso he may not exercise the powers conferred upon the Governor by Section 5, which is the section that enables the Governor to \"grant, lease or otherwise alienate land\". \n\nPresumably, the proviso means only that the Lands Officer may execute the document but may not exercise the power to agree to a grant. Section 4 and the Schedule to the Fiji Ordinance provide that the Commissioner of Lands may execute leases on behalf of the Crown. In the case of British Guiana, Ordinance No.42 of 1930 appears to have recognised that grants must be formally executed by the Governor, though if this is so, it would seem doubtful whether a stamp of his signature with counter-signature by another officer is sufficient.\n\n4. My Legal Advisers feel some doubt, however, whether anything but amending Letters Patent will suffice if the present proposal is to be pursued. The literal meaning of Article XIII of the Hong Kong Letters Patent is apparently that the Governor (and only he himself) is to execute grants and that procedure is not to be regulated by local law or instructions that the latter can amend the express terms of the Letters Patent by empowering someone else to execute grants. It may be argued that there is nothing in the Letters Patent to prevent an Ordinance being passed making provision entirely independent of the Letters Patent for the disposal of Crown lands; but it is also arguable that such an Ordinance would be repugnant to Article XIII of the Letters Patent, and Section 4 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, clearly implies that a Colonial law is void if it is repugnant to instructions in Letters Patent which authorise the Governor to assent to laws.\n\n5. This question has in fact been considered in relation to Article XI of the East Africa Order in Council, 1906, the terms of which are similar to those of Article XIII of Hong Kong Letters Patent. In 1926, the Governor of Kenya wished to introduce legislation delegating his power to execute dispositions and grants of land in the Kenya Protectorate, but was advised that such an enactment would be ultra vires because under Article XI of the East Africa Order in Council, such grants could be made only by the Governor. The then Secretary of State informed the Governor that he was advised that amendment of the Order in Council was unnecessary because the provision contained in Article XI was an enabling and not a restrictive provision; that the legislative powers conferred on the Legislative Council included the power to deal with land; and that the Governor's power under Article XI must be regarded as additional to and not restrictive of any general provision as to grants.\n\nPage 9\n\n## C. O.\n\n|  |  |\n| --- | --- |\n| Mr. A. J. Dawe. |  |\n| Mr. Sir H. Moore. |  |\n| Mr. Sir G. Tomlinson. |  |\n| Mr. Sir J. Shuckburgh. |  |\n| Permt. U.S. of S. |  |\n| Parly. U.S. of S. |  |\n| Secretary of State. |  |\n\nDRAFT.\n\nFURTHER ACTION.",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-587-10 Governor's power to make and execute grants of Crown lands 20-5-1940 - 17-10-1940.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    },
    {
        "id": 594418,
        "series_id": 27,
        "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine",
        "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案",
        "series_use_hku_proxy": false,
        "document_key": "CO129-617-6 Development- recommendations of Hong Kong Colonial Development and Welfare Committee 18-7-1947 - 23-12-1947",
        "page_number": 37,
        "title": "CO129-617-6 Development- recommendations of Hong Kong Colonial Development and Welfare Committee 18-7-1947 - 23-12-1947",
        "content_text": "## III. GENERAL RESERVE\n\n| General Reserve | £ |\n| --- | --- |\n| Far East | 1,000,000 |\n| Hong Kong | 1,500,000 |\n| Borneo and Sarawak | 5,000,000 |\n| **Total** | **£7,500,000** |\n| Malaya | 1,750,000 |\n| Indian Ocean | 250,000 |\n| Ceylon |  |\n| Mauritius |  |\n| Seychelles |  |\n| **Total** | **£2,000,000** |\n| Middle East |  |\n| Aden and Protectorate | 800,000 |\n| Palestine and Transjordan* | 1,000,000 |\n| **Total** | **£1,800,000** |\n| Mediterranean |  |\n| Cyprus | 1,750,000 |\n| Malta | 50,000 |\n| Gibraltar | 100,000 |\n| **Total** | **£1,900,000** |\n| West Africa |  |\n| Gambia⭑ | 1,300,000 |\n| Sierra Leone |  |\n| Gold Coast | 2,600,000 |\n| Nigeria | 3,500,000 |\n| **Total** | **£23,000,000** |\n| East Africa |  |\n| Somaliland | 750,000 |\n| Kenya | 3,500,000 |\n| Uganda | 2,500,000 |\n| Tanganyika | 5,250,000 |\n| Zanzibar | 750,000 |\n| East Africa General | 3,500,000 |\n| **Total** | **£16,250,000** |\n| Central Africa |  |\n| Nyasaland | 2,000,000 |\n| Northern Rhodesia | 2,500,000 |\n| Central Africa-General | 1,000,000 |\n| **Total** | **£5,500,000** |\n| South Africa | 2,500,000 |\n| High Commission Territories |  |\n| **Total** | **£85,500,000** |\n\n* Provision may be required for existing commitment in respect of Hydro-electric scheme.\n⭑ Provisional.\n* Token figure.\n\nOf the Gambia allocation £500,000 to be earmarked for drainage, rehousing and slum clearance at Bathurst.\n\n£1,000,000*\n\n## Enclosure 3 to circular despatch dated 12th November, 1945\n\n**MEMORANDUM**\n\n## I. Central Schemes. (See paragraph 5 of despatch.)\n\nThe following is a list of the schemes for which finance is being provided apart from the allocations made to individual Colonies or groups of Colonies and for which no provision need therefore be set aside in colonial comprehensive plans.\n\n(1) All research schemes.\n(2) Scheme for the improvement of the geological survey of the Colonial Empire. This scheme will be treated as a research scheme.\n(3) Proposals now under consideration for the provision of higher education facilities in the Colonial Empire. (See `Cmd. 6647`, `Cmd. 6654`, `Cmd. 6655`.)\n(4) A training scheme for assisting selected scholars from the Colonies to qualify for the Colonial Service. (Under consideration.)\n(5) Assistance towards post-graduate training of candidates both from this country and from the Colonies for the Colonial Service, both administrative and technical. (Under consideration.)\n(6) Scheme for a geodetic and topographical survey of the Colonial Empire.\n(7) Scheme for the provision and improvement of aeronautical wireless communications and aeronautical meteorological services. This scheme will not include provision for airfields or other air facilities. Provision for these latter purposes should, therefore, continue to be included, where assistance is required towards them from the Colonial Development and Welfare Vote, in the plans submitted by Colonial Territories.\n(8) A scheme for the establishment of a central nutrition organisation for the Colonial Empire in London.\n\nThe above list of schemes may be amended or added to later but is given to Colonial Governments for their general guidance. Inclusion of any scheme within the above list, does not, of course, mean that the financing of services already in existence in the Colonies for objects connected with any of the above will necessarily be modified.\n\n## II. Preparation of Comprehensive Plans. (See paragraphs 8 to 15 of the despatch.)\n\n(1) Expenditure side:\n\n(a) The object of the plan is to give an outline sketch of the developments proposed in the Colony over the next ten years, regard being had to its general financial status. The plan should embrace all schemes considered necessary for the above purpose without reference to the particular source from which they will be financed. For further comment on this latter point see under (2) below.\n\n(b) The plan need be drawn up in broad outline only. Indeed this is desirable in order to avoid unnecessary waste of labour at the preliminary planning stage. Schemes to be included within the plan can be ...\n\n*The General Reserve will be available for both central schemes and colonial schemes.\n\n41",
        "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-617-6 Development- recommendations of Hong Kong Colonial Development and Welfare Committee 18-7-1947 - 23-12-1947.txt",
        "external_url": "",
        "rank": 0
    }
]