2
matters; but one vital part of the subject seems to me to have been insufficiently con- sidered, namely, the bearing of these laws upon the great evil of brothel slavery. Looking to the language of this report, it should have been accompanied by nearly, the whole correspondence between the Colony and this office on the subject of both' Ordinances. I gather from page 2 of the Report that you laid all this correspondence before the Commission; but, though portions are printed, other material documents are omitted, and it is necessary for the proper comprehension of the difficult questions involved that the whole correspondence should be examined.
**
**
The first page of the report states: "The shadow of a grave responsibility rests on all "who have been concerned, both in the introduction of this law and in its administration. "But we should be flinching from our duty if we allowed it to be thought that, in our judgment, this responsibility stops short with the authorities and officers of this Colony. The law was originally introduced and has been since perpetuated greatly through " influences from outside, and in deference to opinions which have not stood the test of experience, and the Ordinance 10 of 1867 received its final sanction, when the con- ❝clusion arrived at by the Colonial Government was before the Home Authorities, showing that, in the event of the Ordinance becoming law, revenue would be derived " from the tainted sources of prostitution among the Chinese, while it had been decided "not to enforce against the houses for Chinese only those sanitary clauses of the Ordi-
nance which formed its only raison d'être.”
*
**
**
**
At page 7 it is said, "Legislation built very much on the lines subsequently followed by Ordinance 10 of 1867, was first applied to the subject of prostitution in this Colony more than 20 years ago.
There are certain differences between the Ordinance then passed and the one now in force which we shall presently consider. But the two main principles then adopted prevail to the present day, and may be thus summarised :---
1. The legalisation of houses of ill-fame in consideration of fees paid to the Govern-
"ment.
"2. The medical examination of the persons of prostitutes, and their segregation in a
"lock hospital for treatment when found diseased."
And the Appendix is referred to as containing the most important documents relating to the institution of the Ordinance of 1857.
444
Again, at page 8, there is this passage: "The object of the Ordinance (1857), as "declared by its preamble, was strictly limited to making provisions for checking the spread of venereal diseases within this Colony; but houses solely for the use of "Chinese did not cease to be registered, nor did revenue cease to be derived from them " when it became clear that the sanitary clauses of the enactment could never be applied to them. Thus, by indirect means never apparently contemplated by the Legislature,
**
" was Government supervision or control, independent of sanitary reasons, established
over a very considerable portion of the prostitution of the place."
CE
#6
At page 51 it is said, "the imperative" sanitary reasons which formed the ostensible and, indeed, the only admissible ground for establishing governmental relations with "brothels, only hold good with respect to less than one third of the privileged establish- "ments, and the great majority have been allowed to contribute funds year by year "towards a sanitary scheme, the benefits of which their inmates have refused practically "to partake of."
The sixth conclusion, at page 52, in which you express your entire concurrence, states, "that the Ordinances did not contemplate or justify the licensing and regulation "of such houses for purposes other than those connected with the suppression of "venereal diseass, and "that such houses should never have been made a source of " revenue."
""
And, at page 53, the report recommends that, in future, houses for the sole use of Chinese should not be in any way subject to Government supervision.
From these passages it is evident that the framers of the report are of opinion that the Ordinances were enacted chiefly for the purposes of preventing disease and increasing the revenue of the Colony. I shall allude later on to the revenue question, but in order to judge how far a main object was the prevention of disease the original proposals on the whole subject must be borne in mind, and I cannot but express my regret for this reason that the full correspondence was not printed with the report. Sir John Bowring's Despatch, of 2nd May 1856, which is not printed, formis, with the reports enclosed in it, an important link in the chain of correspondence, showing how the registration or licensing question arose, and leading up to Mr. Labouchere's reply of 27th August 1856, which is printed at page 207.
Mr. Labouchere's despatch indicates that he felt that the Colonial Government was not sufficiently impressed with the necessity of protecting the unhappy women who were,
3
and many of whom I fear are still, held in a state of practical slavery; and it authorised the passing of the Draft Ordinance which had been sent home, but only as a tem- porary measure until a protective law could be framed and put in force.
Sir John Bowring's reply, dated 20th March 1857, is printed, page 208, but the greater part of its enclosures are omitted, as well as Mr. Labouchere's reply, of IIth August 1857. It is consequently impossible to gather from the printed documents that Sir John Bowring transmitted two draft ordinances in this despatch, or that of these the one prepared by Mr. Anstey was merely the previous draft slightly altered, while the other prepared by Mr. Bridges, and so strongly condemned in Mr. Anstey's letter which is printed, was in fact preferred by the Secretary of State, and with some modifi- cations became eventually Ordinance No. 12 of 1857.
65
GE
Mr. Labouchere writes, "Her Majesty's Government are disposed to prefer the provi- "sions of the Draft Ordinance of Mr. Bridges to those of the Ordinance for the "Repression of certain Diseases.' My despatch of the 27th August last will have "already explained the grounds of this opinion, and the reasoning there advanced in favour of licensing houses of this description only derive additional strength from the great practical difficulty which has evidently attended all attempts at legislation on "the principles of mere repression. It appears also that whatever objections of principle may be urged against licensing this class of houses (and I am far from underrating "their force) those objections apply with almost or quite equal strength to the provisions "of the Repression' Ordinance for indemnifying brothel keepers who act in conformity "with its directions against legal molestation. In either case, brothels are equally placed under the protection of the law, though in a different mode and under different "conditions."
40
"
**
In referring to these passages I have not overlooked the passage at page 44, when, after referring to Mr. Labouchere's despatch of 27th August 1856, in terms which seem to imply that the idea of registration, as well as of protection, originated with the Secretary of State, which, if intended, is incorrect, the Report says, " Accordingly we "find that, although the brothels set apart for the sole use of Chinese were never subjected to medical supervision, they were kept in all other particulars under the same control as those for the accommodation of foreigners." I have also noted the paragraph which states at page 45, "With the internal cleanliness and comfort of brothels "we think the Government has but little to do, but the amelioration of the condition of "the inmates is a matter which certainly stands on a different footing, and is one in "which the Government has a deep interest;" and that at the foot of pa se 49 respecting the few cases which "seem to have any material hearing on the question of the liberty "of the women in licensed houses or the amelioration of their condition;" but, after reading these passages, it was with some surprise that I found the report stating at page 51 that sanitary reasons formed the ostensible, and, indeed, only admissible ground for establishing "governmental relations with brothels," and recommending at page 53 that houses for the sole use of Chinese should not be subject to Government *supervision."
It is quite clear that Mr. Labouchere, having regard to the unhappy circumstances prevailing in Hong Kong, considered the necessity for the protection of the inmates, as distinguished from their medical treatment, to be a valid reason for giving to the Government supervision and control over all brothels in the colony.
Enough appears
in the Appendix to indicate that the motives which influenced Mr. Labouchere in 1857 were recognized in 1867. This view is supported by soine parts of Sir R. Macdonnell's despatch, of 10th August 1857, the enclosures to which, without the desparcb, are printed at pages 218-220 of the appendix; and 1 notice that the special powers of supervision created in 1857 were continued in 1867 to the Registrar-General, the Superintendent of Police, and persons deputed by them; and these powers are found in a different part of the Ordinance from the provisions relating to medical examination and the duties to be discharged by the medical officers.
That such was really the case is placed beyond doubt by Sir R. MacDonnell's "These police Despatch, of 23rd March 1868, which contains the following passage:
**
#
powers of supervision it is proposed to exercise at once and continuously for the protection as well of the unfortunate inmates of all licensed houses as others of the same class; and practically the views of Mr. Labouchere, in his Despatch of 27th " August 1856, would thus be carried out."
If it be true, as stated at page 46 of the report (though I am not at present convinced upon the point), that Government supervision increases in some respects rather than A 2
415