A direction as has been hinted at in the memorandum laid before us to-day. I should have been happy to give my best consideration to any such suggestions. In connection with this matter of drainage and water works, the memorandum suggests they should be placed under the control of the Sanitary Board. Now, the question as to the amendment or reconstruction of the Sanitary Board may be one of importance, but I believe it has been generally understood that so long as these works are actually in course of construction, it would be better to leave them under the department under which they now are. That was the very strong feeling of Mr. Chadwick, although he had no strong feeling against transferring them to the Sanitary Board afterwards if thought desirable.
But as to a Board of this nature, I must say my opinion is this, and it is not only entertained by myself but by many others, that whether you call it a Sanitary Board or a Municipal Board, if you give it the power of spending money, you must also give it the power of imposing rates and obtaining the money it spends; otherwise, it spends the money of someone else, and we all know that so long as we have money of our own to spend, we are very careful, but if we have an unlimited supply belonging to another person, or when the supply is exhausted, can say to someone else, "I am in debt and you must pay my debts," the same care and caution are not needed.
Therefore, it seems to me it is a principle that must be borne in mind that if we give the Sanitary Board power to spend money, we must also give it power to raise money from the taxpayers. Another point connected with the memorandum is that of the gaol extension. This question, I may remind hon. members, has been going on ever since 1875—that is, since fifteen years ago.
In 1875, there was a committee appointed to consider the whole question of Gaol discipline. The report of that committee was sent to the Secretary of State, and a long correspondence ensued between the Secretary of State and the Governor, Sir John Pope Hennessy, as to the necessity of in some way or other improving the discipline of the Gaol. It was definitively decided about that period that a low gaol was to be built at Stonecutters' Island, but the Military Authorities objected to that, and for the time being, that scheme was abandoned under instructions from the Secretary of State.
In 1883, when Sir George Bowen was Governor, he requested the Secretary of State, in consequence of the large amount of public works then going on, to allow the question of gaol extension to be postponed, and the Secretary of State wrote back to say he assented to that being done, but on the understanding that the question should not be indefinitely postponed, and he hoped shortly to be placed in possession of plans showing what definite scheme was proposed.
In 1886, another commission was appointed to consider the question of insufficient accommodation in the gaol. That commission very strongly recommended what had been already recommended by the Secretary of State, that the gaol should be extended without delay; they stated that it was overcrowded, but they recommended that it should be extended principally on the ground that the separate system might be had recourse to, which they concluded would have a very beneficial effect.
I believe opinions on that point differ, and from the report of the proceedings in the Finance Committee the other day, which I have read, it appears that the hon. member who represents the Chinese community is of opinion that separate confinement would not have any very deterrent effect; but there appears no doubt that those who have given their attention to this matter, at least many of them, have a contrary opinion, and this opinion has been concurred in by the Secretary of State himself.
Correspondence was subsequently carried on from the time the report of that commission was sent home up to within the last year. I am not sure whether there was much correspondence carried on during the course of last year—that is, 1889—but the Secretary of State again drew my attention to the fact that no provision had been made for gaol extension in the estimates for last year, and I was then obliged to take up the question and make such proposals to him as I considered desirable.
I have been all through, and still am, of opinion that it would not be desirable, if we could avoid it, to build a new, large, and costly gaol, but that if possible, we should extend the present gaol so as to provide further accommodation. The despatch I wrote to the Secretary of State has not yet been replied to; therefore, I do not know whether the Secretary of State agrees with the views I expressed or not, but I may inform the Council there were three alternatives I placed before him: one was to build an entirely new gaol as previously suggested, the second was to build a new block, and the third was the extension of the present gaol.
I was not in favour of an entirely new gaol, nor of building a new block, because if you begin a new block, it is practically beginning a new gaol, and you must have a separate staff, which would greatly increase the cost. However, the Secretary of State has not replied to my despatch, and I am not in a position to say what his views are.
But in conclusion, I must say something will have to be done, and that before very long, to provide further accommodation. I myself have visited the gaol on several occasions during the last few months. According to the regulations, special accommodation should be provided for first-class misdemeanants, for prisoners awaiting trial, and also for debtors.
There is no special accommodation in the present gaol for first-class misdemeanants or for prisoners awaiting trial; women have to be imprisoned in some houses hired for the purpose; and the debtors are not provided for in the way they should be. We must bear in mind that the debtor is sent to gaol merely for confinement because he does not pay his debt, and he should be treated with every respect and regard for his comfort.
It is an important question whether imprisonment for debt is desirable. On that point, opinions are divided. I do not myself think it desirable. I think in most English colonies, the same course has been adopted as in England, namely, that a man should not be imprisoned merely because he does not pay his debt, though if he has the means of paying and will not pay, or if he has contracted the debt without having any prospect of paying it, you may treat that as an offence for which he may be imprisoned, but to confine a man merely because he does not pay his debt certainly seems rather contrary to the views of the present time.
However, this is a matter into which I have inquired, and I have been informed by those who have experience of this colony that it might be undesirable to disturb this system, and therefore, if it is to be continued, it is desirable proper accommodation should be provided. There is a still more important matter in connection with the present gaol, namely, the limited number of cubic feet of air space allowed to prisoners.
I asked the Acting Superintendent the other day to be good enough to favour me with some returns, and I find that in seven cells, the number of prisoners on the 6th December was eight, whereas the proper number should have been only three. Now, that is totally contrary to the provisions of the Health Ordinance, and the Superintendent of the Gaol, in allowing that state of things, could, legally speaking, be prosecuted under that Ordinance.
I mention this state of things to show that if we are to observe our laws further, accommodation should be provided. It may be that the Chinese themselves do not object to being huddled together, but we are not concerned so much with what the Chinese like as with their proper treatment when they are imprisoned and with the carrying out of our present law.
I have made these remarks with regard to the gaol to show that I did not submit the vote without having given the matter my fullest consideration. I can understand the unofficial members have not considered it proper to continue this amount in the estimates because, as they very properly remark, we did not know whether we should have to build a new gaol or extend the present one, and we had no plans before us for either.
Now, with regard to plans, it would scarcely have been useful to lay plans before the Council until I was acquainted with the views of the Secretary of State, but he has been furnished with plans regarding the various schemes, and when he has expressed his opinion on which scheme should be followed, it will be possible to lay plans and particulars connected with the scheme adopted before this Council.
Page 715
It has since been done.