298
(2.)
SIR,
Certain Chinese Justices of the Peace to the Acting Colonial Secretary.
HONGKONG, 26th June, 1886.
We have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, No. 986, dated the 23rd instant, inviting us to express our views on certain recommenda- tions made by the Commission recently appointed to enquire and report into certain questions connected with the Gaol.
In reply we beg to acquaint you, for the information of His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government, that we have assembled together for the consideration of the subject-matters of your letter above referred to, and after careful deliberation, have unanimously arrived at the following conclusions:-
We
1. We cannot altogether agree with the said Commission in the recommen- dation of Corporal Punishment for simple larceny. We are of opinion that such punishment for such offences is unnecessarily severe. would, however, strongly recommend Corporal Punishment in the follow- ing cases :-
(1.) Juvenile Offenders, 16 and under.
(2.) Old Offenders, having had two previous convictions or more. (3.) Earring snatching and snatching things from women and
children.
(4.) Robbery with Violence, such as garroting, &c.
(5.) Extortion and Black-mailing.
(6.) Intimidating and the sending of threatening letters or messages with the view of hindering the course of justice or the carry- ing out of public duties.
(7.) Being found armed with dangerous weapons without sufficient
reason and excuse.
(8.) Returning from Banishment.
(9.) Armed attack on or forced entry into any dwelling-house, shop,
junk, &c.
(10.) Piracy.
11.) Indecent Assault.
2. We do not consider the cutting off of the queues of prisoners to be an effective mode of punishment. With the respectable Chinese the loss of the queue is considered a disgrace, but with the ruffians it is a matter of indifference. And we further oppose this mode of punishment on the following grounds :-
(1.) It would prevent criminals from returning to the mainland
opposite, and perforce keep them in Hongkong.
(2.) It would to a certain extent close the door against future
repentance.
(3.) It would facilitate their evading the Night-pass Ordinance as they could easily then put on European dress, the prejudice against having the queue cut off having been forcibly removed by the Government.
(4.) It is meaningless, and we cannot think of a single instance
where it is necessary and effectual.
We have the honour to be,
Your most obedient Servants,
The Honourable FREDERICK Stewart,
Acting Colonial Secretary,