536
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 16TH NOVEMBER,
1878.
Honourable P. RYRIE.-I suppose we shall have the printed forms some days before the second reading? His EXCELLENCY.-I will undertake to have them in the hands of Honourable members three days before the second reading, or we can postpone the meeting if you like.
Honourable W. KESWICK.-Seven days is the usual time.
His EXCELLENCY.-Well, we can have seven days. Practically nearly all the items appearing on these papers have been before you in Finance Committee, and so far, therefore, I ought on this occasion to thank you very much for the great pains you have given from time to time in the Finance Committee in framing these Estimates, because that is what it comes to. I have not myself made a single alteration in any vote passed by the Committee. I may tell you there was one vote-one or two votes, about which I was in a little doubt. I thought perhaps the Finance Committee were a little generous, but I thought it better to yield my views to those of the Committee, and I have allowed the Treasurer to embody in the Estimates every proposal of the Finance Committee.
The Ordinance was read a first time.
THE GAOL.
A
i
His EXCELLENCY.-Now, gentlemen, at the last meeting of Council I. referred to a suggestion of the Chief Justice about the prison and the prison rules, and I then told you it would be my duty to lay before you information which would put you in possession of the requirements of the Secretary of State. Well, I have done that, and in writing to the Secretary of State I told him that this despatch which he had sent he did not instruct me to lay it before the Legislative Council, but I said "though you have not instructed me to lay the despatch before the Legislative Council, I have ventured to do so, as I am at all times most anxious to ascertain, by the full expression of opinion in public Council, the views of those who represent so important a section of the community as the gentlemen I refer to." I may say that in the despatch I wrote to Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH reporting the fact that I had laid his despatch before the Council, I said that my Honourable friend on the right (Mr. KESWICK) to whom I mentioned in August its general scope and who had a conversation on the subject with Mr. PRICE, and my Honourable friend on the left (Mr. LowCock), who also had a conversation with Mr. PRICE about it, both entertained doubts as to whether it was judicious to spend much money on Gaol extension in this Colony. My Honourable friend on the right (Mr. KESWICK) did not think it was right to spend much money in that way, and he suggested an alternative scheme which, if carried out, he thought might do away with the necessity. However that
may be, I think it only respectful to my Honourable friends that they should have laid before them the first despatch of Lord CARNARVON and the despatch of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH. They have been in the hands of Honourable members since the 15th October, and I have no doubt my Honourable friends have carefully considered them, and I should be glad to elicit a full and frank expression of opinion on the subject. I am sorry my Honourable friend Mr. PRICE is not here to-day, because he would have given us some important information, but without myself entering into the matter or antici- pating what you may say, I think it but right to inform you what the basis of our consideration ought to be. In the first place Her Majesty's Government say we must have a Gaol on the separate system. Then comes the question how many prisoners ought we to accommodate in the Gaol here. Now, taking this time in the last year Sir ARTHUR KENNEDY'S ༼ཨཝིཡམཐཱ པཱལནྣཱ i gཡཉྩ ་ནུ་£h+A.jཎMoreho1873 → parind which we may fairly look to as giving u r'average of the number we ought to provide for in the Gaol, I find a memorandum of Mr. TOMLIN in which he says, Tovember, 1876, that owing to the very large number of prisoners confined in the Gaol, 574, it became necessary to increase the number of prisoners in each cell, putting nine in each of the large cells and seven in the small ones. Mr. TOMLIN also favoured me in May, 1877, with a return of the whole cubic space of the cells in which these prisoners were confined, and the result is that in the large cells, where usually there were seven prisoners, but where in 1876 there had been nine, there were 184 cubic feet for each man. In the other cells it amounted to 221 feet for each man. I now speak of Chinese prisoners only. The European prisoners have larger cells, that is, there is a much smaller number in the cell; indeed, as a general rule, each prisoner has a cell to himself. Now, the question is, if we are to have anything like that number, 574 prisoners, whether it is right to crowd them so much into the cells that we should have only 221 or 184 cubic feet for each man. Her Majesty's Government have over and over again said you must have at least a thousand cubic feet of breathing space for each man, and I find in a very valuable report supplied by Deputy Inspector-General WELLS and Dr. O'BRIEN, though the precise object of their inquiry was of a different character, they refer incidentally and for reasons which you will understand, to the space in each cell and they express the opinion that the average space in the cells of our prison is not sufficiently large. Taking the Europeans and Chinese throughout the whole of the Gaol in regard to their space they find the allowance is from 482 to 775 cubic feet. This is the general average, which includes Europeans. The figures they gave, 482 and 775, were the figures given by Dr. AYRES. He made a subsequent minute that these were the average of the whole Gaol, including the Europeans, but taking Chinese alone of course it is much smaller. The Commis- sioners, who have most recently reported on the Gaol, express a decided opinion we should have from a thousand to twelve hundred cubic feet per man. Lord CARNARVON, writing to me shortly after I arrived, said "I consider the separate system to be the only true basis of prison discipline, and among Chinese prisoners there are very special reasons for its adoption. It is mentioned in the report that few of the Warders know Chinese, and the terrible outbreak in the Singapore prison is a warning of the danger of affording Chinese an opportunity to combine. I have to request that you will at once call on the Surveyor General to draw out plans for consideration showing the alterations that would be requisite and the surrounding ground and buildings." Well, you are aware, gentlemen, I did that. I made an effort also to get rid of our old offenders by a transportation scheme. Well, it did not succeed. Her Majesty's Government do not see the way clear to that at present, and no hope is held out that it will be done ultimately. Then comes the important despatch of Sir MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH of the 5th June, 1878. He puts the whole case very briefly in the last two paragraphs. He says:—
"In many respects I am of opinion that the erection of a new prison on a new site will be found to be the best solution of the question, but the expense which it would involve would doubtless be very great, and it will be for you to inquire carefully into the financial conditions of the various schemes which I have suggested. The main elements for consideration appear to be roughly, on the one hand, the cost of acquiring additional land in the vicinity of the present site and of converting the present buildings and erecting those which will be required in addition; and on the other hand, the cost of
?
i