Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 234

226

speaking at the Nigeria Club dinner, said he wished the Colonies to regard him not merely as head of the office, but also as a friend. Well, Sir, in view of that statement of the Duke of Devonshire, I can hardly suppose that he intended by anticipation to absolutely preclude and bar himself from considering any reasoned opinions made by the unofficial members of the Council with regard to any measure brought before it. He also makes a statement to the effect that he will not interfere with the man on the spot. Well, Sir, I think the unofficial members of the Council can claim to be more than one man, and it is an interference with them. It is also, Sir, if the Head of the Colony is intended- an interference with the Governor of the Colony to say not merely that he wishes a cer- tain measure to be passed but that he will not receive from the Governor any expression of opinion in Council, but insists upon a certain course of action being taken entirely with- out any reference to that opinion. I now, Sir, have to formally move as an amendment, that Clauses 4 and 5 be put into Part 3 of this Bill, and upon this point I feel so strongly the disrespect that is being shown to the considered opinions of the unofficial members of this Council on the subject, I shall have to press for a division.

H.E. THE GOVERNOR-I trust that in his last sentence the hon. member is not referring to me as showing disrespect to the views of the Council. It is the last thing I desire to do, but in this matter, I have, as I have already stated, very definite in- structions. The hon. member has read certain extracts from a telegram relating to what the Duke of Devonshire said after

a lunch on a certain occasion. I have a telegram here, dated shortly before that time, in which he says he con- siders this law should be passed without further delay, on the following lines: Declaration that payment in respect of a child confers no rights over the child. Prohibition of the engagement of a mui-tsai from the date of the passing of this Ordin- ance; prohibition of the engagement of a mui-tsai. "In passing a Bill on the above lines there can be no compromise on the first and second provisions, but we will carefully and sympathetically consider any representations the Chinese may wish to make before the proclamation, bringing Part III into force, is issued". The telegram was sent after the Secretary of State received from here a full statement as to the objections to the Bill raised by the Chinese community-which cover all the ground which has been taken --and it was pointed out to me I was at home when the telegram conveying these ob- jections was received that the objections put forward were those that the Secretary of State was aware of when his decision was taken. I am positive the Secretary of State has no desire to show any disrespect to the Council and I deprecate the suggestion that because the Secretary of State has prejudged the matter therefore the Council's views will not be considered. It is very rarely that the Secretary of States takes a decisive line of this kind, and in this instance I fear his desire to take the views of the man on the spot has possibly been overruled by his desire to do what he believes to be right and in ac- cordance with British principles. I am clear that the clauses in some shape or form must form part of the Bill and I myself can see no reason why they should not, because it is perfectly clear that the system must end. The hon. member says the system is actually put an end to by Clause 2. In that case why object to say so and prevent recruitment of future mui-tsai? The Secretary of State has expressed his readiness to listen to advice on any of the minor matters of the Bill and, of course, he will pay due attention to what has been said on this subject. Well, now, what is the use of postpon- ing this clause and putting it into Part III? It only means that the abolition of the system will be delayed, possibly for two or three months. It is not to be supposed that the Secretary of State will alter his opinion on the matter and the only practical differ- ence would be that a certain number of persons would be under the impression that they would be at liberty to engage mui-tsai for the next two or three months. Supposing the Secretary of State does alter his opinion, which is most unlikely; it would always be possible to repeal the clause and no harm would be done, except that for a few months no one would be able to obtain a mui-tsai, and that the hon. member agrees would be desir- able. We do not wish people to engage further mui-tsai and I think the more difficult we make it for them the greater the advantage to the community. I am extremely sorry to differ from the hon. member but I feel the clause in some form or other must be included in some part of the Bill which comes into immediate operation. I am quite willing to consider any suggestions for change in the wording.

HON. MR. POLLOCK-Here is a clause which must be passed. I don't see where we shall benefit ourselves by trying to adopt another. If you are bound by instructions you are fully bound.