(4.) In s. 6 the second & third provisos are taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act and are also in the Straits Ordinance. They were omitted from the Ordinance by oversight and should be allowed without remark? As to the first proviso & as to the effect of this whole section, refer to CO 882/4 (forwarding a Memorial from the Chinese Subject) No. 18604.
(5) I'm sorry that in drafting we omitted by an oversight the provision as to debts and legal proceedings for the recovery of a debt which occurs in s.4(2)(c) of the Straits Ord., and the reason for which is given in par. 4 of desp. to Straits of 5 Mar. 1889. I suggest that such words be added when occasion may arise for amending this Ordinance.
(6) In s.14(3) the words "in any case within subsection 1 or 2" have been added to the draft Ord., proposal, I think, with the effect of the section being now the same as s. 5 (1) of the Straits Ord.
(7) In the same section 14, the words "and shall not be trained or used as a prostitute" were very properly added.
(8) S.20 was not in the Draft, but see par. 7,56 of H.M.'s letter of 15.9.1880. I think it may stand as it is. Your covering despatch left it to the Governor to introduce such a provision (as in Straits Ord.) if he thought fit.
(10) In s.21(2), the addition of the words "if he knowingly allows such place to be used as a brothel" is unobjectionable (similar words are in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, s.13). But notwithstanding the Attorney General's Report on this section, I consider the requirement of the fiat of the A.G. to be superfluous, cumbrous, and likely to lead to delay, which in some cases may enable the guilty parties to escape, and the young girls (perhaps) who have been employed in the unregistered brothel to hide away. I was responsible to say that in the S. of State's dispatch this proviso was referred to above "if he knowingly allows" being for protection, and direct that when next the Ord. is amended, these words be omitted, adding that an amending Ord. need not be introduced for this purpose alone.
(11) In s.21(5), the addition of the words "subsections 1, 2, and 3 of" need not be objected to, as there seems no necessity to limit subsection 4 also to include Europeans and not to.
(12) In s.33(3), the penalty is put at $500 (as in Straits Ord.) instead...