HONG KONG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
261
4.
think the statements of that learned Chief Justice are not always a safe guide on this subject. In one point at least the views expressed by him conflicted with those held by one of my predecessors, and, what is more important, entirely conflicted with the views held by the law officers in England, so that I think any statement made by him on this subject should not be accepted without due examination. The other remark is that I should like to repeat what has been said so often but which some people appear not to appreciate fully, that is, that the law of Hong Kong does not recognise and never has recognised that the payment of money can give any rights whatsoever on the person making the payment, no rights whatsoever of possession or property over any other human being. I beg to move the first reading.
THE COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded and the Bill was read a first time.
Objects and Reasons.
The "Objects and Reasons" for the Bill were stated as follows:
1. This Ordinance proposes to make certain amendments in the Female Domestic Service Ordinance, 1923, Ordinance No. 1 of 1923, in order to increase its efficiency.
2. Section 2 of this Ordinance prohibits the bringing into the Colony of any new mui tsai, but if a mui tsai is already in the Colony the section will not prevent her being taken out of the Colony and brought back again, provided that she is registered under the Ordinance before she is taken out.
3. Section 3 of this Ordinance repeals sections 7 and 8 of the principal Ordinance. Section 7 was inserted in the principal Ordinance in its passage through the Legislative Council. lt provides that in every prosecution for over-work or ill-treatment of a mui tsai medical evidence shall be given as to the injuries received by the mui tsai, that the magistrate must find whether such ill-treatment amounted to gross cruelty, and that if the magistrate finds gross cruelty the offender must be sentenced to imprisonment without the option of a fine. The object was the laudable one that cases of gross cruelty should be adequately punished. There are, however, two dangers. One is that even gross cruelty may leave no indications to which a medical witness can point, and the medical evidence might even have the effect of weakening the evidence of gross cruelty. A more serious danger is that inadvertent failure to call medical evidence on a charge under section 6 of the principal Ordinance might lead to the quashing of a conviction. It is even possible that if the charge were one of common assault, and medical evidence were not called, the conviction might be attacked on the ground that section 7 of the principal Ordinance would apply to the charge of assault on a mui tsai as well as to a charge expressly laid under section 6.
42