RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1988
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q
59

been thrown out by the Legislative Council and whether it was to be reconsidered. The questioner did not realise that the proposal had never come before the Legislative Council but had only been under consideration in the Executive Council.

In reply to the question the Government spokesman said the matter had been under consideration by the Colonial Government and the Governor was to be asked what measures, if any, were contemplated.

A comment for the information of the Under-Secretary minuted on a Colonial Office Despatch contained the following history of the progress of the Sanitary Board's recommendation through the Executive Council. In June 1919 the Executive Council in Hong Kong had considered the proposals of the Sanitary Board but had postponed the matter. The next week it asked the Sanitary Board to supply statistics relating to the classes of work in which children were employed and the hours of work. This report was considered on 24 July, but the Colonial Secretary had concluded that if the education problem were solved, then the child labour problem would solve itself. Though the Executive Council side-stepped the problem, pressure for action was continued by interested groups. At the end of December the Council proposed appointing a Commission to enquire into the conditions of the industrial employment of children and to advise as to the desirability and feasibility of legislation. But as the agitation died down the Executive Council in March 1920 decided to postpone the appointment of the Commission.

Proposals passed at a Church of England Men's Society Meeting February 1921

The example Hong Kong could set for China was a theme which ran through the discussions on child labour laws. When Mr. Bowley again addressed the Church of England Men's Society on the subject in February 1921, he took up the theme. “Our Colony is in a unique position as an outpost of Western civilization on the fringe of one of the oldest civilizations of the world, and, if we are to justify our boast that Western civilization is the better, it behooves us to look carefully at the conditions of our own community.' 

It must be noted, however, that he had preceded this by a reference
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1988
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q
61

He testified that he, himself, had been in the Colony for twenty-eight years and had come into contact with Chinese of all grades and occupations. His admiration for them increased daily. The object of his efforts was “to encourage Europeans and Chinese to work together until this became an ideal Colony, and an example to the rest of the world”. This statement was greeted with applause from most present. The resolution was then put to the meeting and was passed, though there were a few dissenting votes.

Appointment of commission

With increasing pressure both in Hong Kong and Britain, the Government appointed a Commission of Inquiry on Child Labour in March 1921. The Chairman was the Honourable S. B. C. Ross. Two Chinese were appointed, the Honourable Mr. Chow Shouson, a member of the Legislative Council, Hong Kong-born but a retired Chinese Government official who had extensive business interests in Hong Kong, and Mr. Li Ping, a wealthy Hakka contractor who had extensive property interests, especially in Sham Shui Po. Two missionaries of long experience were named to the Committee, Miss A. M. Pitts of the Church Missionary Society and the Rev. R. H. Wells of the London Missionary Society. The remaining member was a medical doctor, C. W. McKenny.

Miss Pitts' speech 27 October 1921

Miss Pitts gave a talk on the topic at the Helena May Institute on 27 October 1921. She had expected the report of the commission would have been published at the time of her lecture, for she planned to discuss the whole of it. As it had not yet been published, she confined herself to her own personal experiences rather than a full discussion of the situation on the basis of the findings of the report.

She took a soft approach. Though she had no doubt there was an urgent need for legislation, she thought it spoke well for the managers of factories that there were not more evils than did exist. Her experience had been that when suggestions were made to the managers for improvements, these had been met with sympathetic consideration, and, in most cases, action was taken. Nonetheless, she said, “Human nature being what it is, and having regard to the desire of the people who are poor to work as long
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1988
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q
62

as they can, it shows the need for some laws to help people in spite of themselves". She realized that “the people one is trying most to help are the ones who will most rebel against it'. 

Miss Pitts appealed to Christian principles and the influence she believed they exerted. “I do think we should have a very strong Christian conscience on this matter. What is being done by young Chinese, by students and the younger leaders of the day, is really all the results of Christianity. It is Christianity that makes them see that women and children ought not to be oppressed and that money made at the expense of exploiting human strength is not money one would like exactly to possess.

A columnist in the Hong Kong Telegraph who regularly provided "Rambling Thoughts on Current Matters" took exception to Miss Pitts crediting Christianity with all social advance. It was part of a new spirit, he said, which “in spite of wars and the brutality and bestiality attendant on wars, is steadily and ceaselessly at work". He, however, commended the general remarks of Miss Pitts. He testified that the blunt manner in which she had dealt with the question of child labour had made him uncomfortable. He saw a hard road ahead of those who were advocating change. Something would be done only if they kept on shouting until they got near to being troublesome, for "the only way to get things done in a place like Hong Kong is to make yourself almost a nuisance”. 

Report of the Commission on Child Labour

15

The report of the Commission on Child Labour was placed before the Legislative Council on 27 September 1921. The Commission had collected evidence from ten factories. This showed that few children worked less than seventy hours a week. Most were on piece work. In a tobacco factory the children were on a time rate of twelve cents for a nine-hour day. There were no rest halls, eating rooms or wash houses.

Mr. Li Ping, a member of the committee, was commended for providing a school for small children whose mothers worked at his factory at Sham Shui Po. On the other hand, conditions were particularly bad at a glass factory where boys worked from 6 a.m. to 11 p.m. for a dollar a month plus their board and lodging.
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1988
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q
65

desirable to cut down on the hours of labour done by children, there was a limit to what could be done if the children were not to be worse off after legislation than before. To restrict labour would mean cutting down the income of families that already were at subsistence level.

Except in a very few cases, he did not believe there was sweated labour in Hong Kong. He admitted "the work is hard... but where it constitutes the alternative to starvation it should be allowed". The children working in China were mostly worse off than those in Hong Kong and for this reason the Commission did not recommend the total prohibition of work by children.

He claimed that to institute compulsory education would attract millions from China. Mr. Chow might have been asked why so many children should come to Hong Kong for education if their lot was so much worse in China and their labour was needed to keep the family from starvation. As an alternative to compulsory education, Mr. Chow suggested voluntary attendance at evening or Sunday classes.

An editorial in the China Mail on the Commission's Report stated that registration, inspection and compulsion would only add to the sufferings of the children, not alleviate them. It took a racial line and recommended that when child labour had been permitted for or on behalf of Europeans a heavier penalty should be imposed than in similar cases among the Chinese. Rather presumptuously he added, "We at least should get our hands clean first". The editor's negative critique was concluded with the statement that, "It is clear the Commission asks for more than the Government is likely to undertake".

19

The Hong Kong Telegraph expressed shock at the state of affairs: "In many respects it is no exaggeration to say that the inquiry revealed conditions nothing less than appalling". In its view the recommendations proposed by the Commission were “a good start upon a very difficult problem”.

The Child Labour Ordinance enacted

--

September 1922

Another year passed before the "Ordinance to regulate the employment of Children in certain Industries" had its first reading in
================================================================================
RASHKB Journal 皇家亞洲學會香港分會學刊 | RAS-1988
https://digitalrepository.lib.hku.hk/catalog/ft84gb83q
66

the Legislative Council.

The Attorney General introduced the Bill on 21 September 1922. He sounded a cautionary warning, saying that while action was needed, we must attack a problem of this kind very carefully and slowly”, because too much interference with the existing system would cause great hardship.

1

At the second reading of the bill a week later the Governor stated that the Commission on Child Labour recognised it was inevitable that the regulations on the labour of children would impose hardship on the lowest economic group in Hong Kong, but this was the lesser of two evils, for if nothing were done the harm done to children would continue. He hoped that a general improvement in industry in Hong Kong would assist in alleviating any hardship caused by the new legislation; he noted that already adults were receiving higher wages.

He assured the Legislature that the Government was committed to expanding educational facilities and was investigating provision of better accommodation for the poor, thus cutting down their housing costs.

He particularly acknowledged the contribution of Miss Pitts and the Rev. Wells to the Commission's Report. He expected that the passing of the Ordinance would put a seal, as it were, on their work here in connection with the Chinese”.

He viewed the Bill as the beginning of a proper recognition of the *rights of both women and children in the industrial life of the Colony which has so long been considered desirable but which has not hitherto been very noticeable”.

Several Unofficial Members spoke. The Senior Chinese member, the Honourable Mr. Chow Shouson spoke first. He said that he and his Chinese colleagues were in sympathy with the Bill, nevertheless they felt it should be noted that in their opinion if the Bill were passed as it then stood some poor families would be deprived of a part of other earning power. There was the possibility of an increase in juvenile criminals if children, who had formerly been working, were allowed to run wild in the streets.

Page 90

Page 91
================================================================================