69
ance, where the former French consul at Shanghai, M. Lemaire, on his way to become Resident in Hue, was in residence, waiters refused to serve him. Moreover, the crew of the hotel launch also refused to take him to his ship, and he had to be taken by a government launch instead.1
When the strike first became general, there was a consensus in the English newspapers that the fines imposed were the cause. There were doubts as to the legality of the fines, the Daily Press reported,18 and it expressed sympathy for boatmen who had been blackmailed into staging a strike against the French, and then had been fined by the local government for this.19 The strikers themselves protested against the fines. A proclamation posted at Queen's Road by boat people made this clear. It explained that the strike was in consequence of their having been fined by the British authorities for refusing to convey cargo for the French. It went on to implore "eminent and intelligent gentlemen of your firms [to] be good enough to assist us with the strength of one arm in order that we may not be laughed at by the French."20
21
The Government must also have realized the fatal part the fines played. The Attorney-General himself expressed doubts about their legality. Section XVII of Ordinance 8 of 1858 under which the cargo boats were fined applied only to workers who refused to work unless they were paid more than the stated scale, and not to workers who refused to work at all.22 It is not difficult to see why the Attorney-General should have had doubts.
The Government, however, chose not to do anything about the fines. At an Executive Council meeting on the 1st October, this issue was discussed, but it resolved not to interfere with the magistrate's decision to fine. The reason given was that, while the strike lasted, the Government should not give the impression that it was yielding to pressure.23
The English newspapers' attitude to the strike hardened from about this same stage. Withdrawing whatever earlier sympathy it had had for the strikers, the Daily Press suggested on the 3rd that they should be replaced by workers hired from other places even if only to alert the boat people to the possibility that their livelihood was threatened. It sounded the alarm that the
69
ance, where the former French consul at Shanghai, M. Lemaire, on his way to become Resident in Hue, was in residence, waiters refused to serve him. Moreover, the crew of the hotel launch also refused to take him to his ship, and he had to be taken by a government launch instead.1
When the strike first became general, there was a consensus in the English newspapers that the fines imposed were the cause. There were doubts as to the legality of the fines, the Daily Press reported,18 and it expressed sympathy for boatmen who had been blackmailed into staging a strike against the French, and then had been fined by the local government for this.19 The strikers them- selves protested against the fines. A proclamation posted at Queen's Road by boat people made this clear. It explained that the strike was in consequence of their having been fined by the British authorities for refusing to convey cargo for the French. It went on to implore "eminent and intelligent gentlemen of your firms [to] be good enough to assist us with the strength of one arm in order that we may not be laughed at by the French."20
21
The Government must also have realized the fatal part the fines played. The Attorney-General himself expressed doubts about their legality. Section XVII of Ordinance 8 of 1858 under which the cargo boats were fined applied only to workers who refused to work unless they were paid more than the stated scale, and not to workers who refused to work at all.22 It is not difficult to see why the Attorney-General should have had doubts.
The Government, however, chose not to do anything about the fines. At an Executive Council meeting on the 1st October, this issue was discussed, but it resolved not to interfere with the magistrate's decision to fine. The reason given was that, while the strike lasted, the Government should not give the impression that it was yielding to pressure.23
The English newspapers' attitude to the strike hardened from about this same stage. Withdrawing whatever earlier sympathy it had had for the strikers, the Daily Press suggested on the 3rd that they should be replaced by workers hired from other places even if only to alert the boat people to the possibility that their livelihood was threatened. It sounded the alarm that the
¡
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.