omitted from 0.7%

this Bill.

(3) Part III as to Registered & Unregistered Brothels is taken from

the old Ord. of 1867 (4.42fc of H. 6.-2475-1880

218676. and though the word Licensed &

Unlicensed

are

altered to Registered

& Unregistered, the provisions really hardly altered at all - and the licensing is really retained under

another name.

And this goes a

great deal beyond the general principles

laid down in part 7 of despatch of Jul 1887 (p. 54gH634

Under the Straits Ord. any

brothel

may get itself Registered (subject to its obeying the Regulations under the Ord.) Except within prescribed

area

but this Hongkong Bill s.27(3) gives

power to refuse to register & s.28(1) speaks distinctly

of the Registrar General having power to refuse registration & 1.360 speaks.hintly

of Licensing pure & simple.

Again this Bill does not restrict

Part III to brothels occupied by Asiatic women

as the S. of State

directed.

1

ss. 38-45 as to proceedings against Unregistered Brothels should be I think

wholly omitted, & replaced by

as in s. 10/2 the Straits Ords which

such simple provisions

and 12/2) of the

provide for penalties against keepers of unregistered brothels, and give power

Where?

-188

1.54

to enter

any place reasonably suspected

of being a

brothel.

In that case 0.4

0.47.

would also

require to be amended into the form

of 10(3) of the Straits Ord. ...

Ilan

500

Hongkong people must be made to

understand that not merely

unregistered brothels but also registered brothels may be proceeded against, if they become

a

nuisance

n

latter.

to any

I that there

Nam

for shield protecting

(4) I doubt the necessity of Part II at all. The Lock Hospital like the other Hospitals will be provided for by annual Estimates & requires

If however

special Ordinance clauses are

to be retained,

I should like to correct their

phraseology in several points. contain no provision, as (5) 01.56-7 in Straits Ord, for Regulations being laid on table of Leg. Council, for that body to disapprove them if it thinks fit. (6) The Schedule & to Ordinance

B

does not repeal the whole Contagious Diseases Ord. 1867,

the

as we

4.6.347. 1889 proposed in par. 10 of despatch of Jul 1887

but retains ss. 30-33. I think they should have been repealed & reenacted, if required. They will

Share This Page