Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 243

235

at propaganda in the United Kingdom rather than to submit recommendations for the con- sideration of the Hong Kong Government and its responsible advisers-I mean the Secre-` tary for Chinese Affairs and the Chinese members of the Legislative Council. However, the extract from the South China Morning Post above referred to was sent by the Colonial Secretary to the Secretary for Chinese Affairs for his observations and he replied on the 7th November, 1928, that the Domestic Service Ordinance seemed to him to be an ex- cellent example of legislation in advance of public opinion and that the time had not yet come to enforce part III of the Ordinance.

6. Upon receipt of your telegram of the 17th January, I convened a special meet- ing of the District Watch Committee, the body most representative of Chinese opinion in- this Colony and including all three Chinese members of the Legislative Council. This meeting took place at Government House on the 4th February, with myself in the Chair and with the Colonial Secretary, the Attorney General and the Secretary for Chinese Affairs also present. The members of the District Watch Committee stated that, in spite of the great increase in the population of the Colony (it was estimated at 681,800 in 1923 and cannot now be less than one million) and notwithstanding the chaos and anarchy prevalent in China during recent years, there was no reason to believe that the number of mui-tsai. in the Colony had increased: that cases of cruelty to children were rare that Chinese opinion in Hong Kong would be solidly opposed to the enforcement of part III of Ord- inance No. 1 of 1923: and they advised that the proper course would be to deal very severely with any cases of cruelty to children which might come to light. It was pointed out by the Secretary for Chinese Affairs that registration in the form suggested would be equivalent to recognition of the status of mui-tsai, which at present has no sanction in law, and that in law a mui-tsai is now in the same position as any other domestic servant, except in so far as being a minor she is subject to the same restrictions on her liberty as any other child. Moreover, how would registration be enforced?

Would anyone, even the Anti-Muitsai Society itself, be prepared to advocate house to house visits by in- spectors? In any case the proposal to take mui-tsai away from their employers and lodge them in the Po Leung Kuk would be impracticable, for that institution is barely able to provide for 70 inmates in all. Perhaps, however, useful practical work could be done by an organization similar to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in Eng- land or by Government Inspectors, possibly women. This suggestion seemed to appeal strongly to the three Chinese members of Legislative Council.

ure

7. Subsequently the Secretary for Chinese Affairs submitted the attached reportEnclos on the working of the Female Domestic Service Ordinance, 1923, with which I find my- self in general agreement. I may say that in my earlier service under the Hong Kong Government I had personal experience of the mui-tsai system and formed the conclusion that on the whole it was humane and benevolent, having regard to conditions of life in China. Its origin is not any absence of love in Chinese parents for their female children, for I am persuaded that Chinese parents are as a rule very fond of their daughters, but rather excessive philoprogenitiveness among a people living habitually "one jump ahead of starvation". The Secretary for Chinese Affairs writes: "Those who have had experi- ence of famine relief work will realize that it is seldom the desire for money which in- duces parents in China to part with their children and that the alternative may quite well be starvation". I can corroborate this from my personal experience. From April to June 1903, I was seconded by the Hong Kong Government for famine relief work in the province of Kwangsi. While engaged on this duty I repeatedly travelled by launch up and down the West River and I well remember how at each township and village by the riverside, where my launch put in, Chinese women with babies in their arms and children at their sides were lined up begging the launch passengers, myself included, not to buy but to take from them as a gift the little ones who otherwise would starve and for whom the mothers were totally unable to provide. Mui-tsai, so acquired, are as a rule well treated and it is considered by Chinese public opinion to be obligatory on their employers to see that they are married or suitably provided for when they are about 18 years of age.

S. The recent repetition in Mr. J. H. Harris's letter of the charge of slavery seems to make it desirable to assert once more that, whatever may be said against the customs of employing mui-tsai, it cannot, as it exists in Hong Kong, be called slavery, except by a gross misuse of that term. A system of slavery implies that the law, written or customary, definitely recognises and enforces certain rights of ownership in favour of