Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 233

225

Hong Kong, conferred any rights whatever on the purchaser. I must confess I am rather surprised to hear the hon. member question the correctness of the preamble and suggest that it is not an erroneous supposition at all and that payment does confer rights. We are speaking, Sir, in this clause of English law, Hong Kong law, and whether the rights may be in China they do not concern us. It is undoubtedly an erroneous supposition that payment of money for a child confers, or has ever conferred, any rights on the pur- chaser, and I think it is important to keep the preamble in this clause to make that point quite clear.

H.E. THE GOVERNOR-I think the hon. member's objection will be met if we cut the word "erroneously" which means nothing very important from my point of view, but seems to be a great deal from the hon. member's point of view. There is no question, I think, that certain persons have made this erroneous supposition.

HON. MR. HOLYOAK-Is is not very important that we should at this juncture protest in the most vigorous and comprehensive terms against the erroneous charges level- led against us in the Press of England?-greatly exaggerated and largely untrue charges. I found, as no doubt you did, Sir, when at Home in the past few months, constant re- ferences to "Hong Kong slavery" and even to an open slave market-statements which were as preposterous in conception as they were untrue in fact. It is due to the Colony and the good Government of the Colony that these base insinuations and positive misre- presentations of the truth should be contested in the most vigorous form. Therefore I wholly agree with your Excellency that the term "erroneous" whether it is employed in the Bill or not does convey the conviction of this Council with regard to public opinion. at Home which has been fostered upon gross misrepresentations of the truth.

,

H.E. THE GOVERNOR--The "erroneous supposers" are the Chinese who paid money for mui-tsai.

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL—And the Europeans who imagined that the sale of human beings was recognised here by English law: they made the same erroneous supposi- tion and they have called upon us to change the law, when, as a matter of fact, there is no need to change the law, because the law has never recognised any rights whatever.

HON. MR. POLLOCK-I am afraid members of Parliament do not recognise them- selves as my friend does-as "certain persons".

H.E. THE GOVERNOR-I confess I did not either. What the Hon. Mr. Holyoak has said makes me think it wise to retain the word 'erroneously' and I think it must remove the objections of the Hon. Mr. Pollock. There is no question that the opinions of members of Parliament and others at Home to whom he referred were "erroneous”.

HON. MR. POLLOCK did not press his amendment, and it was agreed that clause 2 should stand part of the Bill.

ment.

HON. MR. POLLOCK—With regard to Clauses 4 and 5 I have to move an amend- That Clauses 4 and 5 be removed into part 3 of the present Bill. As I have al- ready explained, Sir, in my opening speech, the unofficial members of Council have spent a considerable amount of time on this Bill. As regards myself it would be more cor- rect to say that I have spent days than hours on this measure and the construction there- of. And the conclusion the unofficial members have come to on this Bill is that these Clauses 4 and 5 are undesirable, unnecessary, and unworkable, but Sir, whether we are right or wrong in our views, we think we have the right to demand that our views on Clauses 4 and 5 should be submitted to the Secretary of State for the Colonies before these clauses are rammed through this Council against the unanimous wishes of the un- official members by use of the official vote. Your Excellency has stated that Clauses 4 and 5 must be passed as they stand, because of the instructions received from the Secre- tary of State. It seems to me to be imputing an extraordinarily autocratic temperament to that high official to suppose that he desires these instructions to be carried out immedi- ately, instead of with the delay of two of three months only, and I think, Sir, that such a supposition is extraordinarily uncomplimentary to our own Secretary of State. I cannot imagine, Sir, that he has any desire excepting to find out what the views of this Coun- cil are on this measure, because to suppose anything else would be to suppose that he intends to turn this Council and its deliberations into a positive farce. I have before me now, Sir, a telegram from London on December 13th in which the Duke of Devonshire,