HL Deb 21 June 1880 vol 253 cc398-404
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

, in rising to call the attention of the House to the differences of opinion between the Attorney General and the Governor of Hong Kong, and between the Attorney General and the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, as to the purchase and detention of children and so-called domestic servitude in Hong Kong; and to the Report of the Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Ordinance of 1867, said: In calling your Lordships' attention to this subject, I shall not have occasion to remark upon anything more unsavoury than the con- duct of some of the police and officials, of Hong Kong. I am going to confine myself to the treatment of the Chinese, and to complain of the conduct of some police officials, and I shall ask the Secretary of State to support the Report of Mr. Pope Hennessy's Commissioners. The Papers to which I ask attention are Reports of Commissioners appointed by the Governor of Hong Kong in November, 1877, to inquire into the working of the Contagious Diseases Ordinances. I am glad of this opportunity of testifying to the good service rendered in this matter by the Governor, Mr. Pope Hennessy, since the colonial newspapers have lately attacked him for disturbing that Colony; and if the other matters which he has disturbed, and for which he has been complained of, are like the abuses reported in these Papers, he is deserving of the highest praise. This Report has been laid before the other House on a Motion of Mr. Stansfeld. That right hon. Gentleman is the strongest opponent of the Acts in question; hitherto I have been in favour of them; but these Acts will become impossible if they are to be accompanied by the tyranny and official corruption setforth in this Report; a tyranny which has for its object to increase the Revenue, and not the sanitary objects which could alone justify the passing of these Acts and Ordinances. The Report states (p. 16) that it was shown— That revenue would be derived from the tainted sources of prostitution amongst the Chinese, while it had been decided not to enforce against the houses for the Chinese only those sanitary clauses of the Ordinance which formed its only raison d'être." This statement of the Report is confirmed by the large sum mentioned—$111,149 profit—which has accrued to the Colonial Treasury from this source from 1857 to 1877. It is this raising of revenue, of licensing and of recognizing as a condition or profession, which is demoralizing, and which has made this system so hateful in France. When Vespasian replied to the remonstrances of his more scrupulous and sensitive son, Non olet nummus he referred to material, not to moral taint. The raising of revenue, moreover, always brings with it the use of informers and spies. These, again, are most hateful in France, and if resorted to in this country the Acts would not be tolerated any longer But at Hong Kong spies and informers have flourished beyond anything known elsewhere. Some of the Metropolitan Police have been drafted off to Hong Kong to assist in the pursuit of unfortunate women, and higher officials appear to have joined in the chase, as a pastime apparently. Such is the terror inspired by these informers that in 1877 two women in trying to escape from them fell over the roofs of their houses, and were killed outright. The inquest on them gave rise to this inquiry. In other years several women risked their lives by escaping through windows from the inspectors, and several were severely injured by falls. It is the practice of these informers to offer marked dollars to Chinese women, and if accepted to prosecute them; though the Report states that there is— Most serious suspicion whether the money was not placed by the informers where the inspector could find it, or that it was not given for the purposes subsequently deposed to. The Report also states that in 1861 the acting Registrar General personally acted as detective, and secured a conviction by means of a European constable. In the following year a woman was fined by the action, as informers and detectives, of the Inspector, a policeman, and the bailiff of the Supreme Court. This bailiff of the Supreme Court had received a diamond ring from this woman, so that he must have been guilty either of having received a bribe, or else, what is worse, of having betrayed a woman to whom he was indebted. It is not clear on what grounds the woman was fined, as the usual order of things was reversed in this case, as she had given instead of receiving the diamond ring, and the Report does not state in whose possession the diamond ring remained eventually, though it complains of the police for illegally depriving the women of money which had been given to them. Such is the haphazard way of proceeding of these informers, and so much do they invade, and break into private houses, that in 1872 and 1874 the Inspectors arrested three girls; subsequently it was proved conclusively that they were immaculate and innocent, and had never been otherwise; perhaps the police might set up the defence that they might have become otherwise later on. I would ask whether Inspectors Horton and Whitehead, who figured in these affairs, had belonged to the Metropolitan Police? The Report dwells at length on the great difference between the Chinese houses and those used by Europeans, and on the fact that the Chinese houses are not dealt with from a sanitary point of view, and it recommends that they should continue to be let alone, and therefore not be subjected to taxation. But, it is said, it is in the interest of philanthropy that these Chinese houses should be licensed, for the sake of protection of Chinese women and children. No such protection, however, has been afforded by the police, and the Attorney General refused to extend his protection, when it was required, and had been called for by the Governor of Hong Kong. A Chinaman, under stress of poverty, had sold his daughter, aged six years, to another Chinese, in October, 1877; in 1878 he claimed her back, having reason to fear that the purchaser was going to sell her and ship her away to another port. The father petitioned the Governor for the restoration of his child, the purchaser also petitioned him against being deprived of the child. The Governor called the attention of the Attorney General to what appeared to him to be an illegal transaction. The Attorney General denied that there was any illegality May 31. The Governor, June 19, 19 days later, desired the Attorney General to prosecute the purchaser of the girl on his behalf. This the Attorney General declined to do; after that there was more correspondence between the Governor and the Attorney General. A Chinese society for the protection of women and children was organized under the auspices of two police magistrates and Dr. Eitel, at the instigation of the Governor. Mr. Pope Hennessy has taken the right method of dealing with the Chinese, in instituting this society, and in asking for the co-operation of the leading Chinamen. The Spaniards in Manilla have found it answer very well to give some authority and a staff of office to Chinese headmen; and if this method were adopted at Singapore and Penang, similar good results would follow. Meantime, the Chief Justice (Sir John Smale) came into action and delivered a judgment from the Bench of the Supreme Court against the whole practice of the Chinese of purchasing either male or female children, and stated that there were 10,000 slaves in Hong Kong; and that all slavery—domestic, agrarian, or for immoral purposes—comes within one and the same category. He also inflicted some very heavy sentences of 18 months with hard labour on two women for detaining a boy of 13. The Chief Justice also expressed his wish for the committal to trial, and for the opportunity of sentencing a druggist who had bought an orphan boy for $17½, who had remained with him as his servant about 20 days. The Chinese Committee, members and leading merchants, then presented a Petition, which very ably stated all the facts of a subject which has been looked upon with such different eyes by the Attorney General and the Chief Justice, and Dr. Eitel made an equally able Report upon this Petition. Now, there can be little doubt that the Attorney General was wrong in his British law, and wrong in declining to carry out the Minute of the Governor. The Attorney General ought to air his Habeas Corpus more frequently; Habeas Corpus is often referred to in the Correspondence, and that instrument ought to have been used; in this ease, in which the Governor called upon him to act, the purchaser of the girl was about to commit a breach of Chinese law and custom if he was going to send away the child from his house. Every Chinese woman or child in Hong Kong ought to be able to cling to the skirts of the Attorney General and find safety under British law. If that were so, and with the help of the Society instituted by Mr. Pope Hennessy, the degrading protection of the Licensing Ordinance, even if such protection existed, would be unnecessary. On the other hand, the Chief Justice, I regret to say, has rushed into wild exaggeration. If his judgment were to be carried out, he would be separating many married couples, and dissolving what are after all apprenticeships, which are beneficial to all parties. I have been authorized by responsible persons in the Chinese Embassy in London to state that the Chinese custom of purchasing children is most beneficial to humanity, and that it is the great check on infanticide, especially female infanticide. That which I heard at the Chinese Embassy is set out in the Petition of the Chinese of Hong Kong, and in Dr. Eitel's Report. I must say that Hong Kong is to be congratulated on the possession of Dr. Eitel. I know nothing more of him than what I find in the official Papers. He is a man of enlarged mind, well acquainted with Chinese customs, and desirous of acting in harmony with them, and of improving them where possible; and I entreat the Secretary of State for the Colonies to give the utmost attention to his recommendations. The noble Lord concluded by moving for the production of the Correspondence and Papers.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

regretted that the Correspondence on the subjects referred to was not yet complete, and therefore could not be produced. The questions which the noble Lord had raised were questions of considerable interest and difficulty. It was the practice throughout China and in Hong Kong to purchase children for adoption. That was to say, children were adopted into a family, and a sum of money was paid on the occasion to the parents. The Chief Justice of Hong Kong had expressed himself very strongly against those practices; but he had done so extra-judicially. He said that both domestic servitude and the purchase of children for the purpose of adoption were contrary to the English laws against slavery and the Slave Trade. The Governor of the Colony took the matter into consideration, and required the Attorney General to institute a prosecution in a case where a father wished to get back an adopted child. The Attorney General, however, differed in opinion from both the Governor and the Chief Justice. Writing on May 1, 1878, he said— The transaction referred to could not be recognized by our law as giving any rights, except, perhaps, those of guardianship; but I am unable to say there is anything illegal in the matter. I do not think it is a criminal offence if it goes no further than the adoption of the child, and the payment of money. The acting Attorney General had since given a similar opinion, and the point being one of great difficulty, he (the Earl of Kimberley) had written to the Governor, requesting him to communicate with the Chief Justice, and ask for the grounds of his opinion; but, as they had not yet been received, he was not prepared to state what course Her Majesty's Government would adopt. At the same time, he thought it right to say that if those institutions had existed from time immemorial among the Chinese, he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to be careful not to confound the institutions and practices of that people with our own. If they were told that those were institutions closely interwoven with Chinese life and habits, it might be difficult to interfere; but if there were at Hong Kong any practices which were contrary to our laws against slavery, those laws would be enforced. Their Lordships would see, however, that before taking any action in the matter it was necessary to ascertain what the facts really were. As to the other branch of the noble Lord's subject—that referring to the Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the Ordinance of 1867—he was able to exonerate the police entirely. He could not enter into the details of the Report from the nature of the subject. There had, however, been some revolting practices arising from the employment of informers, which was now stopped. To prevent the kidnapping of girls an offer had been made by some Chinese gentlemen to form themselves into a society to put it down, and of this he entirely approved. The whole question would require the most careful consideration of the Government. He was not at present in a position to produce any further Papers on the subjects of his noble Friend's inquiry.