+
190
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 25TH FEBRUARY, 1880.
the year 1878 the Chinese gentlemen of the Co-
lony called my attention to the growth of the crime of kidnapping and they asked for my per-
mission to be allowed to form an association and co-operate with the Government in putting down
this crime. Within the last few weeks I have printed in the Government Gazette the criminal returns for the years 1879, 1878, and 1877, from which you will be able to see what has been done by the Government of the Colony to carry out
the views of the Chinese community. Now, in the 1877 there were seventy-
y-three cases of year
kidnapping. That was a large number, and it
attracted the attention of the Chinese in the Co-
lony. Next year they called my attention to it
and I gave strict instructions to the police. In
the year 1878 the number of eases had fallen to fifty-three, and in the year 1879 to fifty-one.
In connection with this subject you have also heard of slavery in Hongkong. I am heartily ashamed, as the representative of the Government of this Colony, that for many years in connection with what are called the brothel laws there un- doubtedly has prevailed a system of positive
slavery. One of the Government departments entrusted with the administration of that Ordi- nance was aware of the fact that women were bought and sold to be put into the brothels of the Colony. As recently as the 1st December, 1877, the Registrar-General, in his evidence be- fore a commission I appointed on this subject,
expressed the opinion that such women were bought; he also went on to say “I think it is useless to try and deal with the question of the freedom of Chinese prostitutes by law or by any Government regulation. From all the surround- ings the thing is impracticable." I find that about ten years before, the then Colonial Secretary, Mr. MERCER, recorded the fact that a Bill of Sale which had come into a Government Department in connection with such a transaction was in his opinion illegal and was sufficient evidence of slave-dealing indictable by law. I agree with Mr. MERCER. I differ froin the gentlernan who gave his evidence in 1877 that the freedom of such women cannot be dealt with by law or by Government regulation. And I know that you all agree
with
me, und that I speak the sentiments
of the Chinese community of the Colony when I say that it is our duty to put down by the force
of law all practices that deprive such women of their freedom in this Colony. Therefore, on
these questions, so far, we are perfectly agreed, you
and I. But now as to the question, which is a totally different one, of what is called buying children for adoption or domestic service. Upon that question I will say a few words to you.
There is nothing in the practice of adoption
which is either wrong or opposed to British law. Nor is there anything in British law opposed to domestic service or the making of contracts for domestic service. What the British law objects to is the buying and selling of human beings for any purpose. Putting aside that part of it, the buying and selling of human beings, I have no
乃有五十一宗
乃十乃明
所分
凡境線
吾買
因服役情事立合
十三宗又一千八百七十九年此種案件 循分應用律例 明在案本部堂迅即札行飭差嚴辦追究 時該司在局紳前所言若 至所稱買子作蝮 乃一千八百七十八年該等案件減至五 爲然而本部堂亦知諸君與我有同情且知本部堂所實是體貼闔港與情按本部堂 身之事不論所 作侍婢此事大想懸範論此本部堂更有數言
女個有賣身契到案者是爲非法可作實據照 阻碍 女自專情事故論此事爾輩與本课堂意見相合 何事所作何工除 自專情事國家則例規條不能辦理等語本部堂不以 本部堂之心深相契合但於一千八百七十七年
除爲
乃百
十七年有粉案七十三宗不爲不多宾此 精業經誌明在案按他 事誠足令本港華民詫異迨次年具禀報 買奴例追究照該輔政司美士所
藻該樂月前 鍌報報宮將一千八百七 衙門有頒行此之戰者亦明知云被 部堂準衆華商之意而行查一千八百七 庸蓋此等情事實因該婦女境過所致不能辦理等語本部堂十年前有輔政司美士 十七年犯罪案件刋錄該錄見本 乃買來者且有按卑職愚見以國家所立辦理華人婦女賣身體與淼屬無 十年一千八百七十八年一千八百七 百七十七年十二月初一日有華民政務司 本部堂立爲續者他意如此嬌女 韓業生請本部堂准立公會韓國家剿 爲奴一歎見面熱內爭奈歴年頒行所帶娼寮則側在内實有買身爲姵之法而該 有過亦未嘗有遠 不少六辦之師】千八 英國製英國
役之人亦無禁人
津劍亦未禁用
所禁者乃買賣人 同者蓋英國律例
務戳
照士無女八