[iii]
(xi) In conclusion, regarding this portion of the Report, the Committee recom- mend that the rules under criticism be re-drafted and expressed in such a manner as to leave no room for doubt as to the specific offences for which floggings may be administered either by the Superintendent alone or by the Superintendent in conjunction with a Visiting Justice; and as it is patent that the majority of floggings are inflicted for repeated refusal to labour, the Committee further recommend that the powers of punishment relating to this offence be particularly defined.
CASES OF PRISONERS Nos. 528 AND 704.
6. (i) The original medical certificates given in the cases of prisoners Nos. 528 and 704 by the Gaol Surgeon and passing them as fit to receive the floggings to which they had been sentenced are appended (Appendix III.) and appear to be in order.
(ii) In Appendix IV. will be found certified copies put in by Mr. LETHBRIDGE of (a) the Medical Officer's report on passing these prisoners for labour; (b) their medical history; (c) the evidence taken before the second floggings were inflicted; and (d) extracts from the prison punishment book.
(iii) Prisoner No. 528 was flogged with six strokes on 21st April after repeated refusal to labour. After the flogging he was relieved from work for four days and then placed on reduced light labour for a fortnight. He was subsequently put back to No. 1 hard labour but refused to carry stones- an offence for which he was sentenced, after a joint inquiry by the Superintendent and a European Justice of the Peace, to receive twenty- four strokes.
(iv) There is no reason to think that the Medical Officer did not conscientiously believe that this prisoner was fit to receive the corporal punishment to which he was subjected; and we are satisfied that sufficient time had elapsed to allow the injurious effects of the first flogging to disappear before the second flogging was sanctioned; that every medical and surgical attention was paid that, under existing arrangements, could be paid after the prisoner had been flogged the second time; that his wounds were dressed upon his being discharged from Gaol notwith- standing the contrary statement of the prisoner himself, and that the aggravated state of his wounds when he was admitted into the Tung Wa Hospital on 13th May might to some extent be due to his own acts after leaving the Gaol.
(v) As regards prisoner No. 704 who died on the 2nd June in the Gaol Hospital of Septicemia due to wounds caused by flogging (vide Dr BELL'S report in Appendix V.), we find that this prisoner was flogged on 18th May--a week after admission into Gaol-with six strokes for repeated refusal to labour; that he was relieved from work for three days; that he was then put on No. 1 hard labour which he refused to do; that on the 25th May he received twelve strokes, after enquiry by the Superintendent and a Chinese Visiting Justice, for such refusal, and that he was admitted to hospital on the 27th May, suffering from a gluteal abscess.
(vi) We absolve the Medical Officers concerned in the treatment of this prisoner from blame for the fatal result of the case. We believe that the Medical Officer carefully satisfied himself to the best of his ability of the fitness of the prisoner to undergo a second flogging within a week of his first flogging, and that it was not within the prescience of the Medical