>
wurd.
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 9TH JUNE, 1880.-
不巡八過有云定少銀衆說用
Section XXIII of Ordinance No. 8 of sas, which by its title applies to Chinese only, eads wridly enough “meudic:ney in the public ghways or streets is hereby forbidden," but Sction XXVIII provides the following penalties
for every offence against Section XXIII, “a sun at exceeding five dollars; or the offender shall,
the discretion of the Court, receive not more
Sun thirty-six blows nor less than five blows. with : rattan, and be deported to his native country,
r. with the consent of such offender, to any other
ple, if His Excellency the Governor shall so Ordinance No. 6 of 1866, Section XXI
de."
which also applies to Chinese only, provides
at every master of a junk bringing into the
talony any persons who shall, in the opinion of
lin Court before which the offence shall be tried,
have come to the Colony for the purpose of men-
icancy, or any person* suffering from leprosy or
wav other contagious diseases, shall be liable to
y a fine not exceeding ten dollars and not less
than one dollar for every such person so brought
by him as aforesaid." Ordinance No. 8 of 1876,
Section XV enacts, "any person convicted before
: Magistrate of endicaney in this Colony shall
eliable to a fine not exceeding five dollars, or,
in default thereof, to imprisonment with or with
...at hard labour, not exceeding twenty-one days,
or in the discretion of the Magistrate, shall be ble to be whipped thirty-six strokes and be ...nt to his native place.”
This is therefore all that the Law of Hongkong ifers to destitutes, fine and imprisonment with
·without hard labour, and, in the case of Chinese. do whipping and deportation to the destitute's native country, or, if the destitute be a native of Hongkong, to that delightfully vague region designated by the Ordinance as " auy other place.
None of these Ordinances defines its terins as
lating to the destitute. Some are professedly
Aites of elass legislation, leave it to the Magis-
te's discretion to decide what mendicity may
te, with what intení a pauper may come to Hong- koug, or what purpose a man with a canker in
As face may have in walking through the streets,
ahrl finally leave it also to the Magistrate's discre-
to which practically means his teinper, to say when it may please him to fine and imprison or to whip and deport.
This condition of the law regarding Chinese
destitutes, being exclusively repressive and deter- nt, is certainly not humane. But it is not even ntional, micss poverty ard destitution are to be desidered as a crime. For if destitution is con- ered as what it really is, viz. a misfortune, 3d if we remember that all the world over,
never the poor are left to private charity, a main amount of melicity is inevitable. it will "pparent that it is neither humane nor reason-
for the Government to have no other remedy ffer for the misfortune of his Chinese subjects for the natural consequences of such misfor- die but that of fine, imprisonment, whipping and ertation. Hongkong was once supposed to likely to serve as a model Colony to exhibit
則如
十别凡奪不
大色 又過
港將 將港
船因
查五五不 如土
等事 但或者
自官
但在千不另有督籐
則有任奪
此十
469
八百七十六年第八條則例第十五款有如此云凡有人爲慣乞事在 有熱毒之症心中懷有若何之意而該 過十大圓又不得少過一大圓依彼載如此之人來港照寞又查一千 任由定凡有奔走路途之人面上生 外茍別無法辦理本土民由 有別色人如患瘋瘡者或有別症可傳染者如此可將船主擬但不奪轨爲慣乞孰無頼面來本港者 可見國家除崮碳監禁鞭笞遷徙 云凡有本土僭主载人入港若該衙門疑此人來港因欲慣乞或竻 僅關本港一等人若义任巡理府意定 必有慣於行乞而無由產絕者如是 定奪又查一千八百六十六年則例第二十一歎亦只專指華人者有 定窮窘慣乞等語有何意思蓋其中有 處若濟貧事任由百姓自行辦理則 少不過五籐又可將該人解回原籍如該犯自願徙往別處則由總督 惚之言所稱之別處按該則例未嘗說 窮窘之事爲苦命源憶舉世不論何 銀不過五大圓或可將犯此之人鞭笞隨該官意但多不過三十六藤 香港垦其原藉則還往該則例用極恍 但不近人情且有乖遁理狖但若稱 衆之處不得慣乞但第二十八欸定云凡有人犯第二十三歎者可罰
鑭必劇窘之爭爲罪則該則例不 用以詿案等語又查一千八百五十八年第八條例有專指華人而
此種辦理窘華人之彌徒有禁止 說者此則例内第二十三欸若用温婉之言而說有云在通衢大道當
恐嚇鷸阻等意貰 不近人情非
幸中所生之患難必至不近人情
不過二十一天或隨巡理府意可鞭三十六簇解回原籍
任性歟 巡理府斷案者可擬罰銀如不能輸罰項則監禁及有無苦工不等但 則例乂准巡理府隨意定奪或罰或 乖違道理矣圍有人意靜香港乃藩 監禁或鞭笞或遷徙如是其能保無有 地一區可作中華模範蓋彼 暗之中入幾若蠻夷之異族如是
有或
凡乞
何按
意該該
叉定有說恍
乖幸外可必
荀見有
別國
近民
请不而是則
則銀
鞭及
人則鞭笞 原藉倘或該窮箬之入 故香港幾例所有施與竊籍人 不過 銀及監禁有無苦工窮者若是華
例餡