156
(Enclosure 8.)
Statement of Mr. Wise.
Saturday, May 1st, 1886.
ALFRED G. WISE,-I am a Barrister at Law, called to the bar in 1878. I have been Police Magistrate since 1st January, 1884.
For sometime I have been strongly of opinion that whipping should be allowed as a punishment for what used to be called Petty Larceny, my reason for saying so is that the offences to which I most particularly allude viz.:-cases of theft of copper nails and pieces of copper from the Dock Company have become so frequent viz.:-8 or 9 cases a week and sometimes more that the Magistrates have been obliged to go on increasing the length of imprisonment until I saw that in more cases than one the offenders had got 4 months for thefts of 5 cents or 10 cents worth of copper nails.
I tried the stocks, but my experience of them is that they did not do much good. I put these men in the stocks on the Chinese Recreation Ground, perhaps had I put them in the stocks on the site of the theft it would have been better, but then I had to consider the expense of conveying prisoner, stocks and constable to Kowloon.
I have always thought that, in cases of small thefts, such as stealing shoes put out to dry, and small thefts from the counter or a shop, it would be better to whip the offender.
I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that, for the ordinary coolie, imprisonment in Victoria Gaol is no punishment at all. He is far better off in Gaol than outside and has not such hard work. I am of opinion that whipping should also be extended to cases of returning from banishment.
I would not extend it further. I would give not more than 12 strokes to a man convicted of stealing 5 or 10 cents nails and he should be whipped as soon as possible, I should have some place in the neighbourhood of the Court for that purpose.
At present I should say there are 15 cases a week in which I think a discretion should be given to the Magistrate to inflict a whipping.
I would not inflict it and then send the man to Gaol. He should be sent away at once; the punishment would not be severe; only sufficient to cause him to remember it for a few days.
(Enclosure 9.)
SCHEDULE of DOCUMENTS sent to the Honourable the Acting Attorney General in connection
with C.S.O. No. 762 of 1886. (Enclosure 2.)
C.S.O. DOCUMENTS.
COPIES OF DESPATCHES FROM GOVERNOR
TO SECRETARY OF STATE.
COPIES OF DESPATCHES FROM SECRETARY OF STATE TO GOVERNOR.
No. 2728 of 1877, No. 3028 of 1880, No. 1453 of 1882, No. 1682 of 1882,
No. 164 of 22nd November, 1877, No. 103 of 24th October, 1878, No. 111 of 18th November, 1878, No. 76 of 31st May,
No. 1683 of 1882,
No. 61 of 19th May,
1879,
1880,
No. 1684 of 1882,
No. 129 of 2nd September, 1880,
No. 45 of 7th May, No. 48 of 5th June, No. 29 of 29th July, No. 99 of 16th August, 1881. No. 39 of 17th March, 1882. No. 224 of 13th October, 1883.
1877.
1878. 1880.
No. 1685 of 1882,
No. 56 of 5th May,
1881,
No. 1686 of 1882, No. 2263 of 1882, No. 2272 of 1882, No. 2399 of 1882,
No. 60 of 19th May,
1881,
No. 57 of 9th May,
1882,
No. 144 of 27th July, No. 202 of 26th August,
1882,
1883,
No. 2452 of 1882, No. 2518 of 1882, No. 2535 of 1882,
No. 2688 of 1882,
No. 4256 of 1882,
No. 4547 of 1882,
No. 990 of 1883, No. 1042 of 1883, No. 1135 of 1886,