Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-17T12:01:45.212Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A National Custom: Debating Female Servitude in Late Nineteenth-Century Hong Kong1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2009

JOHN M. CARROLL
JOHN M. CARROLL*
Affiliation:
Department of History, University of Hong Kong, Pokfulam, Hong Kong, Email: jcarroll@hkucc.hku.hk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article frames the debate about mui-tsai (meizai, female bondservants) in late nineteenth-century Hong Kong within changing conceptions of the colony's political, geographical and cultural position. Whereas some colonial officials saw the mui-tsai system as a national shame that challenged Britain's commitment to ending slavery, others argued that it was an archaic custom that would eventually dissolve as China modernized. The debate also showed the rise of a class of Chinese elites who had accumulated enough power to defend the mui-tsai system as a time-honoured Chinese custom, even while acknowledging that in Hong Kong they lived beyond the boundaries of Chinese sovereignty. Challenging notions of the reach of the colonial state and showing how colonial policies often had unintended consequences, this debate also reveals the analytical and explanatory weakness of concepts such as ‘colonial discourse’ or ‘the colonial mind’.

Type
Research Article
Information
Modern Asian Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 6 , November 2009 , pp. 1463 - 1493
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

2 Smale's declaration, 6 October 1879, enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, in Correspondence Regarding the Alleged Existence of Chinese Slavery in Hong Kong, Presented to Both Houses of Parliament by Command of Her Majesty, March 1882 (London, 1882), 5, reprinted in Irish University Press Area Studies Series, British Parliamentary Papers, China, 26; Correspondence, Annual Reports, Conventions, and Other Papers Relating to the Affairs of Hong Kong, 1882–1899 (hereafter BPP) (Shannon, 1971), 169.

3 For example, Lethbridge, Henry J., “Evolution of a Chinese Voluntary Association in Hong Kong: The Po Leung Kuk,” in Hong Kong: Stability and Change: A Collection of Essays (Hong Kong, 1978), 71–103Google Scholar; Sinn, Elizabeth, “Chinese Patriarchy and the Protection of Women in 19th-century Hong Kong,” in Jaschok, Maria and Miers, Suzanne (eds.), Women and Chinese Patriarchy: Submission, Servitude, and Escape (Hong Kong, 1994), 141–170Google Scholar.

4 Lowe, Kate and McLaughlin, Eugene, “Sir John Pope Hennessy and the ‘Native Race Craze’: Colonial Government in Hong Kong, 1877–1882,” Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 20 (1992), 223–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 For Eitel's summary of the mui-tsai controversy, see Europe in China: The History of Hong Kong from the Beginning to the Year 1882 (1895; reprint, Hong Kong, 1983), 546–548.

6 Lethbridge, ‘Chinese Voluntary Association,” 74–75.

7 Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 167.

8 Bird, Isabella L., The Golden Chersonese and the Way Thither (London, 1883), 41Google Scholar.

9 James William Norton-Kyshe, The History of Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, vol. 2 (Hong Kong, 1898), 358.

10 Norton-Kyshe, Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, 358–359.

11 Eitel, Europe in China, 445.

12 Norton-Kyshe, Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, 275.

13 Smale's declaration, 6 October 1879, BPP, 169.

14 Smale to Hennessy, 20 October 1879, enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 177.

15 Christopher Munn, Anglo-China: Chinese People and British Rule in Hong Kong, 1841–1880 (Richmond, Surrey, 2001), 9.

16 Sayer, G. R., Hong Kong, 1862–1919: Years of Discretion (Hong Kong, 1975), 43–44Google Scholar.

17 Smale's declaration, 6 October 1879, BPP, 169.

18 Smale's declaration, 6 October 1879, BPP, 170.

19 Smale's declaration, 6 October 1879, BPP, 172.

20 Sinn, “Chinese Patriarchy,” 143; see also Sinn, Power and Charity: The Early History of the Tung Wah Hospital, Hong Kong (Hong Kong, 1989), 103, 114.

21 G. B. Endacott, “A Hong Kong History: Europe in China, by E. J. Eitel: The Man and the Book,” Journal of Oriental Studies 4 (1957/1958), 154.

22 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 190.

23 Lethbridge, “Chinese Voluntary Association,” 80–81, states that a combination of several factors made kidnapping especially severe in Dongguan: disruption from triad activities, the Opium Wars and civil strife, as well as the district's role as a base for Chinese emigration and its easy access to the Pearl and East rivers.

24 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, BPP, 190.

25 Enclosure in memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, translated by E. J. Eitel and enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 191.

26 Lethbridge, “Chinese Voluntary Association,” 8; Sinn, “Chinese Patriarchy,” 144.

27 Sinn, “Chinese Patriarchy,” 163.

28 Enclosure in memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, BPP, 191.

29 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, BPP, 190.

30 Enclosure in memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, BPP, 191.

31 Enclosure in memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, BPP, 190–191. In February 1860 a prominent Chinese merchant named Tam Achoy and five other local Chinese had learned the perils of carrying out such vigilante activities. After chartering a steamer, fitting it with guns, and hiring English sailors to attack “a tribe of Hakkas who had forcibly taken possession” of Tam's village in Guangdong and “were committing great ravages throughout the neighbouring country,” the six were charged in Hong Kong with piracy and organizing “a hostile expedition against subjects of the Emperor of China.” Insisting that they had acted in response to a Chinese official's request and were unaware of breaking any law, all six pleaded guilty, put themselves at the mercy of the court, and received a reprimand. Great Britain, Colonial Office, Original Correspondence: Hong Kong, 1841–1951, Series 129 (CO129), Public Record Office, London, “Notes by W. H. Adams, Chief Justice on the Tam Achoy filibuster case,” enclosed in CO 129/78, 21 February 1860, 191–197, and CO 129/78, 24 August 1860, 187–190.

32 Enclosure in memorial of Chinese merchants, 9 November 1878, BPP, 191.

33 Smale's declaration, 6 October 1879, BPP, 172–173.

34 Petitioners listed as Chiu U-t'in (Zhao Yutian), Wong K'wan-t'ong (Wang Juntang), Leung On (Liang An), Kwok Ts'ung, Fung Ming-shan, Wong Shü-t'ong (Huang Shutang), Fung Tang (Feng Deng), Leung Lün-po (Liang Luanbo), Ch'an Cheuk-chi (Chen Zhuozhi), Fung Yin-t'ing (Feng Yanting), Ts'ui Sui-chang (Cui Ruisheng), P'ang Yat-p'o (Pang Yipu), U Ho-ts'un, Kwok Nam-p'ing (Guo Nanping), et al.

35 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 22 October 1879, translated by E. J. Eitel and enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 208–209.

36 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 22 October 1879, BPP, 208–209.

37 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 22 October 1879, BPP, 209–210.

38 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 22 October 1879, BPP, 210–211.

39 Memorial of Chinese merchants, 22 October 1879, BPP, 211–212.

40 Smale's declaration, 27 October 1879, enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 176.

41 Smale's declaration, 27 October 1879, BPP, 176.

42 Eitel's findings were later published as Correspondence Regarding the Alleged Existence of Chinese Slavery in Hong Kong (London, 1882).

43 Hand-Book for the Student of Chinese Buddhism (Hong Kong, 1870). Later revisions and expansions of this book include: Hand-Book for the Student of Chinese Buddhism: Its Historical, Theoretical and Popular Aspects (Hong Kong, 1884) and Hand-Book of Chinese Buddhism: Being a Sanskrit–Chinese Dictionary, with Vocabularies of Buddhist Terms in Pali, Singhalese, Siamese, Burmese, Tibetan, Mongolian and Japanese (Hong Kong, 1888). Eitel also compiled a Cantonese dictionary that was republished after his death as A Chinese Dictionary in the Cantonese Dialect (London and Hong Kong, 1877) and as A Chinese–English Dictionary in the Cantonese Dialect (Hong Kong, 1910–1911).

44 Feng-Shui, or, The Rudiments of Natural Science in China (London, 1873).

45 This brief biography is based on Endacott, “Europe in China, by E. J. Eitel: The Man and the Book,” 41–65; Henry J. Lethbridge's introduction to the reprint of Eitel's Europe in China; and Wong Man-kong, “The Use of Sinology in the Nineteenth Century: Two Perspectives Revealed in the History of Hong Kong,” in Pui-tak, Lee (ed.), Colonial Hong Kong and Modern China (Hong Kong, 2005), 135–154Google Scholar.

46 Eitel's report, 25 October 1879, enclosed in Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, in Chinese Slavery, 51, BPP, 215.

47 Eitel's report, 25 October 1879, BPP, 217–218; original emphasis.

48 Eitel's report, 25 October 1879, BPP, 218–220.

49 Eitel, Europe in China, 165, 569–570.

50 Eitel's report, 25 October 1879, BPP, 219–220.

51 Eitel's report, 25 October 1879, BPP, 220.

52 Eitel's report, 25 October 1879, BPP, 220–221.

53 Bailey to Payson, 22 October 1879, enclosed in Foreign Office to Colonial Office, 30 April 1880, in Chinese Slavery, 57, BPP, 221.

54 Bailey to Payson, BPP, 234.

55 Kimberly to Hennessy, 20 May 1880, in Chinese Slavery, 72, BPP, 236–237.

56 Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 168.

57 Hennessy to Hicks Beach, 23 January 1880, BPP, 168.

58 Hennessy to Kimberly, 23 June 1880, in Chinese Slavery, 74–75, BPP, 238–239.

59 Smale to Stewart, 17 June 1880, enclosed in Hennessy to Kimberly, 3 September 1880, in Chinese Slavery, 82–83, BPP, 246–247.

60 Report by Creagh, 28 June 1880, enclosed in Hennessy to Kimberly, 3 September 1880, BPP, 248.

61 Minute by Ng Choy, 2 July 1880, enclosed in Hennessy to Kimberly, 3 September 1880, BPP, 248.

62 Smale to Stewart, 26 August 1880, enclosed in Hennessy to Kimberly, 4 August 1881, in Chinese Slavery, 94, BPP, 258–259.

63 Smale to Stewart, 24 November 1880, enclosed in Hennessy to Kimberly, 4 August 1881, BPP, 261.

64 Smale to Stewart, 24 November 1880, BPP, 261–264.

65 Hennessy to Kimberly, 15 June 1881, in Chinese Slavery, 90, BPP, 254.

66 Hennessy to Kimberly, 15 June 1881, BPP, 256.

67 Smale to Colonial Office, 15 July 1881, in Chinese Slavery, 89–90, BPP, 253–254.

68 Eitel's report, 2 August 1881, enclosed in Hennessy to Kimberly, 4 August 1881, in Chinese Slavery, 109, BPP, 273.

69 Eitel's report, 2 August 1881, BPP, 274.

70 Kimberly to Hennessy, 18 March 1882, in Chinese Slavery, 122, BPP, 286.

71 Sayer, Hong Kong, 44.

72 Norton-Kyshe, Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, 346.

73 Norton-Kyshe, Laws and Courts of Hong Kong, 347.

74 Eitel, Europe in China, 548.

75 Sinn, “Chinese Patriarchy,” 143.

76 Lethbridge, “Chinese Voluntary Association,” 65, 82, 89–90.

77 Poon Pui Ting, “The Mui Tsai Question in Hong Kong (1901–1940), with Special Emphasis on the Role of the Po Leung Kuk” (MPhil Thesis, University of Hong Kong, 2000), 183.

78 On the mui-tsai controversy in the 1920s and 1930s, see Miners, Norman J., “The Attempts to Abolish the Mui-tsai System in Hong Kong, 1917–1941,” in Sinn, Elizabeth (ed.), Between East and West: Aspects of Social and Political Development in Hong Kong (Hong Kong, 1990), 117–131Google Scholar, and his Hong Kong under Imperial Rule, 1912–1941 (Hong Kong, 1987), chapters 8 and 9; Pedersen, Susan, “The Maternalist Moment in British Colonial Policy: The Controversy over ‘Child Slavery’ in Hong Kong 1917–1941,” Past and Present, 171 (2001), 161–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Poon, “Mui Tsai Question,” chapters 4–7.

79 “Dr Ho Kai's Protest against the Public Health Bill, Submitted to the Government by the Sanitary Board, and the Board's Rejoinder Thereto,” Hong Kong Legislative Council Sessional Papers, 1887, 404.

80 “Dr Ho Kai's Protest,” 404.

81 Cited in Choa, Gerald H., The Life and Times of Sir Kai Ho Kai (Hong Kong, 1981), 111–112Google Scholar.

82 Endacott, G. B., Hong Kong Eclipse, Birch, Alan (ed.) (Hong Kong, 1978), 320Google Scholar.