568378-1929-Supplementary-Bills-read-a-first-time- — Page 12

971

should find it easy to prove the real status of any girl in his household, and the burden is therefore less heavy than it might appear. The provision that the onus will not be discharged by mere proof that the girl was described in some transaction by some term other than mui tsai is inserted because of the practice of describing a mui tsai as an adopted daughter. If the girl was in fact used as a domestic servant, and if money had been paid to secure her services as such, no doubt the magistrate would hold that she was a mui tsai, even though a document was produced in which she was called an adopted daughter. Of course under the main part of the section the magistrate would have to find that the girl was a mui tsai unless there was evidence to the contrary sufficient to dis- charge the onus laid on the accused by the section.

11. The proposed new section 22 will enable the magistrate to estimate the age of a mui tsai even though no evidence is called on the point. Such a provision is obviously necessary. Precedents in prin- ciple may be found in section 27 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1897, and in section 1 (3) of the Street Betting Act, 1906, and section 141 of the Education Act, 1921.

12. Section 32 of the Protection of Women and Girls Ordinance, 1897, provides that "No parent or person acting in the place of a parent who has volun- tarily parted with a girl for the purpose of adoption into another family, or who has received money for parting with the custody of such girl for any purpose, shall be deemed to be entitled as of right to the custody of such girl as her parent or as the person acting in the place of her parent, and the legal guardianship of such girl shall be vested in the Secretary for Chinese Affairs". These provisions appear to be in conflict with some of the provisions of the Female Domestie Service Ordinance, 1923.

13. In the first place it might be argued that the declaratory clause of the later Ordinance, i.e., section 2, negatives the right of guardianship conferred on the Secretary for Chinese Affairs by section 32 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1897 where a parent has received money for parting with the custody of a daughter. It is submitted that the conflict is only apparent, and that though the rights of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs arise upon such payment they are not conferred by that payment. Further, the rights of the Secretary for Chinese Affairs are conferred solely in the interests of the girl, and in that respect they differ from rights of an employer and even from the rights of a parent or guardian. It is therefore submitted that section 2 of Ordinance No. 1 of 1923 is concerned with such rights as those of an employer and such rights as those of a parent, and not with rights conferred on an officer of the Government to enable him to protect the girl, if necessary, against both her employer and her parent. To make this clear, however, section 8 of this Ordinance proposes to add to Ordinance No. 1 of 1923 a new section 23 which will provide that nothing in Ordinance No. 1 of 1923 shall affect any right of guardianship possessed by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs by virtue of the provisions of Ordi- nance No. 4 of 1897.

14. In the second place, while section 32 of Ordi- nance No. 4 of 1897 appears to give the Secretary for Chinese Affairs the full and unfettered rights of a of 1923 legal guardian, section 10 of Ordinance No. considerably limits his right to refuse to restore a girl to the custody of her parent or natural guardian. The