Sessional_Paper_1929 — Page 251

- 243

(c) If the master or mistress sold a mui-tsai for prostitution, he or she was liable to severe punishment under the Chinese law concerning the sale of girls for prostitution.

(d) When a mui-tsai was old enough to be married, it was expected of her master or mistress that they would see that she was properly married to be a wife or a concubine, as the case might be.

(e) On the marriage of a mui-tsai, if her parents were then living, the master or mistress would notify the fact to the parents, and if the parents so desired they would associate with her husband's family as if she had been married by her parents, and the responsibility of the master or mistress would end. But if the mui-tsai had no parents living, the responsibility of the master or mistress still continued and she would be treated in her master's house as a "quasi daughter" and her husband would be treated as a "quasi son-in-law". Consequently, for a mui-tsai to elope with a man without being properly married under the auspices of her master or mistress was deemed to be a disgrace to the family of the master or mistress. This disgrace might not be felt as strongly as in the case of a daughter of the house, but was nevertheless considered by the Chinese to be a loss of "face". In the case of a paid servant, no such stigma attached to the family.

(f) If the master or mistress of a mui-tsai ill-treated her, they were liable to be prosecuted by the parents of the mui-tsai in a Court of Justice in China, for, although the parents had sold their daughter, they were not deprived of this right by law. Should the master or mistress fail to produce the mui-tsai in court at the trial, a charge of manslaughter or murder might be instituted against them. A mere al- legation of this kind in a Chinese court would be sufficient to bring terrible conse- quences upon the master or mistress in question.

From the result of enquiries I have made I am satisfied that these obligations were carried out in the great majority of cases and some of my advisers maintain that there were not as many as ten per cent of failures.

3. I have obtained both from the Anti Mui-tsai Society in Hong Kong and also from His Majesty's Consulate-General at Canton the text of the Regulations for the Emancipation of Salves and Mui-tsai, published by the Chinese authorities on the Ist March, 1927. The texts obtained from these two sources have been collated and Enclosure 1. found to be identical, and I enclose a translation of the twelve regulations in ques- tion. You will observe that it was ordered that from the date of the publication of these regulations no girls should be bought, sold or pledged as mui-tsai, and that all agreements for such purposes should be null and void; that all existing mui-tsai should no longer be called mui-tsai but should be called 'adopted daughters'; that all agreements or presentation deeds in respect of their purchase and sale should be sent to the nearest police station for cancellation and registration in a register special- ly provided for the purpose; that no "adopted daughters" should be ill-treated; that they should be sent to school during the age of 12 to 16, and should not be married later than 23, but might be allowed to remain single if they chose; that no "adopted daughters" should be forced to become concubines; that adequate clothing, board and lodging should be provided for "adopted daughters", according to the circum- stances (of their "adopted parents"); that if any person should be discovered by the police to have beaten or maltreated an "adopted daughter", the girl should be sent to a poor girls' home or an industrial school to be brought up, and that the person who ill-treated the girl should be fined as a warning; that when anybody, who had been fined for maltreating his "adopted daughter", was then found to have maltreat- ed her again, a greater fine or other punishment would be imposed.

4. It is, of course, very important to know how far these fair-seeming regula- tions have been carried into practice, and I have made such enquiries as were pos- sible on the subject. Mr. A. A. L. Tuson, the acting Consul General at Canton, wrote to me on the 29th April that he had no reliable information as to the extent to which the regulations had been enforced. Mr. A. G. Major, His Majesty's Con- sul at Swatow, wrote to me on the same date as follows:-

"Whilst regulations prohibiting the mui-tsai system were promulgated locally over two years ago and are still nominally enforced, actually the practice