the peculiar circumstances of this
3. It may be well to call attention to the following modifications of the draft Ordinance, which was enclosed in NoT of 1890.
(1) The definition of "owner of a brothel" is so worded as to include the owners of houses, junks, boats, and other places, whether used as brothels or not. The word "brothel" having been previously defined, I have used it in the definition of "owner of a brothel" which is, I think, now clear.
(2) I have provided in Clause 3 that the repeal of Ordinance 19 of 1889 shall not thereby repeal any Ordinances thereby repealed for the first time. It thus becomes unnecessary to repeal them in the Schedule of repeals.
(3) As the English law does not deem a polygamous marriage to be valid (See Hyde v. Hyde and Woodmansee. L. R. 1 P. & D. 132), and as it was desirable to recognize the Chinese custom as regards the marriage of young girls, at all events so far as the first wife is concerned, it was considered advisable to give some explanation as to the word "unmarried" as used in this Ordinance. As, however, there are in this Colony other Asiatics besides Chinese, it was thought that the proviso now inserted would best meet the exigencies of the case.
There was a desire on the part of some members to distinctly recognize concubines as "married" within the meaning of the Ordinance. This I considered objectionable, and the Government has supported me by leaving the meaning of the words "duly married" to be decided by the Court should occasion arise. The two last provisos of Section II are taken from section 1 of the Imperial Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.
4. The security referred to in Sections XIX & XX, and set forth in Schedule B has been somewhat added to.
5. The liability of the owner of a brothel, as provided by Part II of the Draft Ordinance, has been modified and is limited in the present Ordinance, as in Subsection 2 of Section III provided.
In this Colony, there are some very large property owners. Occasionally, without their knowledge, consent, and indeed against their wishes, some of their houses, or rooms therein, may be used as unregistered brothels. Where the house is not registered, it is often impossible to find the keeper. The owner might justly be held liable if he knew of and profited by the nefarious use to which his house was put, but it would be unjust to hold him criminally responsible and liable to 6 months imprisonment with hard labour,
for