Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 232

224

The second reading of the Bill was then carried.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved that the Council go into Committee to con- sider the Bill clause by clause.

The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and this was agreed to.

The Council accordingly went into committee.

HON. MR. H. E. POLLOCK-I beg to move an amendment in Clause 2 to make it direct and to run as follows:-

"It is hereby declared and enacted that no payment of money to the parents, or the guardians, or the employer of a female child, such payment purporting to be in return for the transfer of the child, confers upon any person any right of property in the child, or the right to retain possession or custody or control of the child, either as against the child's parent, guardian, or employer, or as against the child herself."

In support of this amendment Sir, I would say that it seems to me a far more direct and definite statement of what you mean to effect than the present declarations Clanse 2, which begins in a round-about sort of way, "Whereas certain persons have erroneously supposed" etc. You Excellency has stated that the certain persons cannot possibly refer to the 300,000,000 to 400,000,000 people living in China, but they must be restricted to the 600,000 Chinese in this Colony. But, Sir, I would beg leave to point out, with deference, that this is not so, because the number of mui-tsai who are acquir- ed in Hong Kong are a very trifling percentage indeed. The mui-tsai who have found their way to Hong Kong come from outside, within the vast Empire of China itself which is subject, as we know, to such very severe and distressing economic conditions, with famine prevalent in very large areas. With regard, Sir to your observation about the desirability of the present system I must confess I have found it very difficult to apply that observation to the remarks which have been made by myself or by my Chinese colleagues. And, furthermore, Sir, I must have expressed myself very indifferently if you have not apprehended the fact that my whole contention is that Clause 2 of this Bill abolutely shatters the mui-tsai system as it hitherto existed; that it brings it to an end completely; that it does away with any possibility of its being represented either as a servile condition or as a proprietary condition. And the amendments which I shall ask your Excellency to make by and by in Clause 12 of this Bill will make the point even stronger, perhaps, than it is at present. I do not say that the system as it has existed hitherto is satisfactory. If I thought it were satisfactory I should oppose this Bill in toto. I do not do that nor do my honourable colleagues. We realise that a con- siderable part of this measure is desirable in the interests of, and the protection of, mui- tsai. We certainly do not contend that this measure, treating it as a whole, is either unnecessary or undesirable. Your Excellency has referred, incidentally, to certain law which are stated to have been passed in China. But I can say, Sir, that from all I learn, these laws are no more carried into force and are of no more use than are the laws for the suppression of opium in China, and therefore I think we may treat them as a nega- tive quantity. I think it necessary to say that, because I want to make the position of the unofficial members of this Council perfectly clear. That is all I have to say on Clause 2 of the Bill. I again urge that it is far more emphatic and far more direct to say that "it is hereby declared and enacted," instead of trying to refer to erroneous suppositions of certain persons with reference to the mui-tsai system. I do not think, Sir, it is an erroneous supposition. I believe the custom of China is that the payment of money does confer certain rights for a period of years, at all events till the girl attains the age of eighteen years, the marriageable age. I do not think it is at all incorrect. It is not an erroneous supposition; it is a true supposition. The Chinese custom, as I understand it. undoubtedly is that the payment of money does confer certain rights on the person who pays that money. I cannot see any good or any advantage to be got by saying that peo- ple erroneously suppose a thing, when, as I understand the position, they do not errone- ously suppose the thing at all. That is all I have to say, Sir, with regard to my amend- ment as to Clause 2.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL-One appreciates the desire to make this clause more direct and arresting, but I think the omission of the preamble obscures one very import- ant point, namely, that the clause does not make any change in the law whatever; for the payment of money in return for obtaining the possession of a child has never, in