Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 239

231

Anyone who knows anything of the inside history of the Colony could say perfectly well that that support of the Bill is-I hesitate to describe it perhaps it is best to describe it as a fake.

There can be nothing in common or in sympathy between the labour unions and the Y.M.C.A. and they join together on this occasion for reasons far different from any consideration for the welfare of mui-tsai.

H.E. THE GOVERNOR-I think Gentlemen, I would rather not say anything further on the subject, except that I desire to associate myself with the Unofficial Members in re- senting the offensive and foul-mouthed libels on the Chinese race which have been a fea- ture of the comments made by the British Press on this subject, instigated thereto by per- sons some of whom I believe have been influenced by genuine philanthropic motives but some of whom it is perfectly clear were actuated only by motives of self-advertisement.

ingly.

The third reading of the Bill was then approved and the measure passed accord-

No. 14.

CONFIDENTIAL DESPATCH FROM GOVERNOR TO SECRETARY OF STATE.

6th March, 1923.

My Lord Duke,

In a numbered despatch of even date I am forwarding to Your Grace for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure the Ordinance "to regulate certain forms of domes- tic service" which has been passed in order to effect the abolition of the mui-tsai system.

2. In my Confidential despatch of January 24th I informed Your Grace that I understood that when the second reading of this measure was brought forward the Unoffi- cial Members of Council would ask for a long adjournment with a view to bringing for- ward counter-proposals and that at the moment of writing I was doubtful as to what would be the wisest policy to adopt if they should do so. As will be seen from the reports of the debates enclosed in my numbered despatch the Unofficial Members changed their minds on this point. Their reason, if my information is correct, was that the Chinese Members felt that if the Government insisted on passing the measure, after they had opposed it, the labour guilds who, as I stated in my previous confidential despatch, were endeavouring to exploit the situation for political purposes, would claim that this was due to their sup- port of the proposed law and that they had therefore won a victory over the representatives of the 'bourgeoisie'.

3. At any rate, whatever the reason may have been, they did not vote against the passing of the bill. There was, as will be seen, a division on the question whether clauses 4 and 5 of the bill which provided that no person should in future take into his employ- ment à mui-tsai or a female domestic servant under ten years of age should be included in the part of the Ordinance which was to come into immediate operation or should be relegated to Part III which is to be brought into force by proclamation.

** * * * *

4. Having Your Grace's instructions that there could be no compromise on this point I decided that I could not accept the motion,

and the question went to a division with the result that all the Unofficial Members voted for the motion and all the Official Members against. In paragraph 2 of my previous despatch I deprecated the use of the official majority in order to pass the Ordinance but in the present case I felt certain that some at least of the Unofficial Members were not really in favour of Mr. Pollock's motion and that if they voted for it it would only be in order to preserve the solidarity of the opposition. I ascertained afterwards that I had correctly diagnosed the situation and that some of those who voted for the motion did not agree with it and shared my inability to understand Mr. Pollock's reasons. I am fully satisfied therefore that the use of the official majority on this occasion has left no ill-feeling behind.

*Not printed.