542
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 16TH NOVEMBER, 1878.
70
which we must not spend heedlessly-how are we to deal with it. I think we should see something like the cost of schemes. As to $45,000 buying the land between the present Gaol and Caine Road, of course it is simply an error of judgment on the part of some one. The value of the site no one can question. If this question has to be considered it should not be considered simply as to the prisoners, whether it would be better for them to be at Stone Cutter's Island. We have to consider whether the money to be expended would be better expended at Stone Cutter's Island or here, or whether by a different system of Gaol discipline and of punishment generally we could not do without it altogether.
His EXCELLENCY.-It was just before the meeting that the Colonial Surgeon called and told me Mr. PRICE was ill; otherwise these figures could have been before you. But you will bear in mind that as against the sum of money we would have to expend in extending the present site--and I quite agree with my Honourable friend (Mr. KESWICK) it would be far in excess of $45,000—against that we could place the site on Stone Cutter's Island, which we have for nothing, and the labour of the prisoners in making the Gaol. I have not myself formed any definite idea on the subject as yet, and will not do so until the question is discussed. I will try and circulate to the members as soon as possible Mr. PRICE's estimates of the alternative schemes.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL suggested that in considering the question of removing the Gaol to Stone Cutter's Island it would be advisable to take into consideration the cost of steam launches to convey the prisoners. That would be an expense that would go on for ever; it would be an annual charge.
The ACTING COLONIAL SECRETARY.-There would still be a necessity for a house of detention here, because there would be no necessity to send to Stone Cutter's Island prisoners who were charged with municipal offences, such as nuisances, or anything in fact merely involving a short imprisonment of a few days or weeks. Juvenile offenders, again, need not be sent to this repressive prison. Consequently, the number of prisoner to be provided for in the new Gaol would not, I believe, exceed three hundred men, and I believe the firm discipline that could be maintained in a place where there was not the slightest temptation for any one to expect gratification would undoubtedly furnish one of the greatest reasons for the belief that the Gaol would effect this great object.
The ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE.-Prisoners on remand would also remain on this side.
His EXCELLENCY.-Then, gentlemen, I will content myself with giving you notice that I will ask you to resume this discussion on this day week, and on that occasion I will lay before you the report of the Commissioners on the mode of flogging in the Gaol, which I have received only quite recently, and some reports on the question of public flogging. I think these two subjects might be very well brought before you the same day, and I will endeavour to let you have as much information on them as I possess myself.
The debate was then adjourned.
THE MARKETS AMENDMENT ORDINANCE.
This Ordinance came on for second reading, and having been considered in committee was passed and numbered 3 of 1878.
THE SUPPLEMENTARY APPROPRIATION ORDINA
The Ordinance also came on for second reading and was passed and numbered 4 of 1878,
THE BANKRUPTCY LAW.
Honourable T. C. HAYLLAR.-Your Excellency, a good deal of attention has been directed recently, through some very unfortunate matters, to the working of the Bankruptcy Ordinance, and I think it may be altogether for the public benefit that there should be laid before the Council the result of the winding up of the estates since the Ordinance 4 of 1864 came
into operation. Should the Council think it expedient these returns should be laid upon the table, and should I happen to have a seat at this board when these returns are presented, I should be prepared to make a substantive motion, but there are one or two things I would mention now as showing that some reform is necessary in the Bankruptcy Ordinance. There has been before the Imperial Parliament for two years a Bill to amend the Bankruptcy Law of 1869, and in all probability that Act will be passed next session. That Act will form no doubt a very useful model for the amendment of the law here, but it seems to me highly expedient before any English Act is adopted here, as the Act of 1861 was, bodily into this Colony, there should be some special inquiry into the circumstances of the Colony, and how far the English law is adapted to them. There are two difficulties which I may very briefly mention. The first is that the bankruptcy law is, I believe, totally unfitted to meet the case of the Chinese. They have nothing of the kind themselves, it is quite a revelation to them. Chinese traders who fall into difficulties never think of going into bankruptcy; they wind up their estates themselves, and very few respectable traders take the trouble to prove on bankrupt estates at all. The consequence is that the estates that have come into our courts have really been estates in which there has been nothing or very little to administer, and where it has been for the purpose of something very like fraud. The second difficulty is this, that when persons intend to evade their debts they very carefully remove everything they have from this Colony, and when the estate comes to be wound up, although they have a great deal of property in their own country, the Court cannot touch it. These are difficulties that have to be met, and I think a great deal of light would be thrown on the working of the Bankruptcy Ordinance if a return was laid on the table showing its first results. I therefore move-
That a return be prepared and presented to the Legislative Council showing:-
1.—The number of adjudications of Bankruptcy declared from the time since "The Bankruptcy Ordinance, 1864”
came into operation to date.
2.-The name and nationality of the bankrupt.
3. The amount of debts shown by the schedule in each case.
4. The amount or value of the estate set out in the schedule, and the amount which actually came into the hands
of the Official Assignee in each case.
5.—The fount of commission received by the Official Assignee in each estate.
6.-The cots of winding up each estate.
7.---The length of time taken in winding up each estate.