PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
TL
Reference :~~
C.O. 882
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
176
No. 89.
THE RIGHT HON. SIR H. T. HOLLAND, BART., G.C.M.G., M.P., to THE RIGHT
SIR,
HON. SIR HERCULES ROBINSON, G.C.M.G.
Downing Street, April 15, 1887.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 15th of March* relative to the Mauritius inquiry.
I propose to print and present to Parliament the despatch under reply, and the others to which you refer, as it appears to me only just to give you this opportunity of answering the complaints put forward by Sir John Pope Hennessy as to your mode of conducting the trial.
I have, &c.
Sir II. Robinson.
No. 90.
(Signed)
H. T. HOLLAND.
The RIGHT HON. SIR HERCULES ROBINSON, G.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON.
SIR H. T. HOLLAND, Bart., G.C.M.G., M.P. (Received April 27, 1887.)
SIB,
Government House, Cape Town, March 31, 1887.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 10th instant, transmitting, for any observations I might wish to offer upon it, a copy of a letter from Sir John Pope Hennessy, dated the 18th January last, questioning the propriety of my appointment to conduct the inquiry into his administration of the Government of Mauritius.
2. Sir John Pope Hennessy contends: (1) That " to send one Governor to try another, "whilst the latter was still Her Majesty's representative, and engaged in conducting "the Government of a Colony, was, as far as he was aware, without precedent;" and (2) "That there were special reasons why I should not have been selected to try him," because it had fallen to him to condemn and correct the policy enforced by me, whilst administering the government of Hong Kong.
3. As to the first point I do not feel called on to make any observation. I did not "send" myself to Mauritius. I merely complied "with the carnest request of Her Majesty's Government that I would proceed to Mauritius to inquire into the "unfortunate state of affairs prevailing in that island." I was influenced solely by a sense of duty in undertaking, without deinur, a most distasteful and thankless task, which I was well aware could bring to myself personally nothing but labour and annoyance.
4. With reference to the second point, as to my supposed personal disqualification for the duty, I would wish to submit to you a few remarks.
5. I arrived in Hong Kong in the latter part of 1859, and left it finally early in 1865. Sir John Pope Hennessy was appointed in 1877. Twelve years accordingly clapsed between my departure from Hong Kong and Sir John Pope Hennessy's assumption of that government. In the 22 years which have passed since my departure from Hong Keng I have been occupied actively in different parts of the world. I had altogether lost touch of Hong Kong affairs, and until my receipt to-day of your despatch under acknowledgment, I had not the remotest conception that Sir John Pope Hennessy had ever condemned or corrected any of my supposed proceedings in Hong Kong, or that there had ever been any divergence of views between us. It is clear, therefore, that the supposed divergence and condemnation, of which I was unaware, could not in any degree have affected my judgment in the Mauritius inquiry.
6. Nor did Sir John Pope Hennessy enlighten me in the matter. On the contrary, he assured me on my landing, and on several subsequent occasions, that he and his friends were thoroughly satisfied with my selection to conduct the inquiry, and that he felt complete confidence in my judgment and impartiality. I am justified, therefore, in looking upon the present plea as an afterthought, advanced when my decision was found to be adverse.
• No. 85.
↑ No. 72.
177
7. But I would go further, and assert that the statements that Sir John Pope Hennessy condemned and corrected my policy and proceedings in Hong Kong have no foundation in fact.
8. Sir John Pope Hennessy's observations convey the impression that it was I who introduced in Hong Kong in 1860 the system of licensing and inspecting Chinese brothels, but this is not the case. The facts are these: Some time before my arrival in Hong Kong syphilis amongst the Chinese female population prevailed to an extent which could not, it was thought, he corrected by any ordinary preventive measures. It was, I remember, alleged that on one occasion Her Majesty's Fleet in Chinese waters could not proceed to sea because so many of the seamen were on the sick list from this cause. It was alleged also that women purchased in Canton were brought to Hong Kong for immoral purposes, where they were virtually held in a state of slavery, and where, through the rapacity and cruelty of their owners they were obliged to pursue their vocation without medical aid until they simply rotted to death.
9. My predecessor, Sir John Bowring, recommended to Her Majesty's Government measures for placing Chinese brothels under legal supervision. The correspondence upon the proposal extended over a considerable period. There was much official and public discussion on the subject. The magnitude of the evil was admitted on all sides, and eventually, after much hesitation, the then Secretary of State, Mr. Labouchere, towards the close, I think, of 1857, approved the proposals of Sir John Bowring's Government. A local enactment, known, if I remember rightly, as the "Chinese Brothels Ordinance," was accordingly passed, providing for the licensing of Chinese brothels, as well as for the medical examination of their inmates, and for the establishment in connexion with them of a "Lock Hospital." This measure I found in full operation upon my arrival in Hong Kong in September 1859.
10. I am not concerned to discuss here whether the remedy thus adopted for the mitigation of an acknowledged evil of exceptional gravity and dimensions was or was not justifiable, or whether it was or was not the best that could have been devised. What I desire to dispute is Sir John Pope Hennessy's contention that because 20 years later he condemned what he then considered to be the evils and abuses resulting from this remedy, I am now disqualified from sitting in judgment upon him. My connexion with the measure which he subsequently condemned was simply limited to allowing a fair trial to a policy and a system recommended by my predecessor, approved by the Secretary of State, legalised by the Legislature, and already in tull operation before my arrival in the Colony. Whatever my own opinion might have been, I could not with propriety have done otherwise.
11. Sir John Pope Hennessy endeavours to connect me with the creation of the office of Inspector of Brothels," with the sanction given to paid informers, and with the payment of brothel fees into general revenue, all of which steps he alleges were authorised by me in 1860. I have no means here of ascertaining the real facts of the case, but I believe it will be found that the systems of inspection, of informers, and of accounts, animadverted on by Sir John Pope Hennessy, were adopted when the Ordinance was brought into operation, and were all in existence on my arrival in Hong Kong late in 1859. However, were it otherwise, it would make no real difference. I should have been bound on my first arrival to carry out the steps deemed necessary by those responsible for securing a fair trial to a measure, which had, before my arrival, and after prolonged discussion, been adopted by the local Legislature, and assented to by Her Majesty's Government. As to allowing the receipts and disbursements sanctioned by law to appear in general revenue and expenditure, that I presume was simply a compliance on the part of the financial officers with the Treasury Regulation which forbids the keeping of separate revenue accounts. Besides, the law having once prescribed the collection by the Government of fees from brothels, I do not see that any greater "taint or "pollution" was involved by paying the amount collected into the general revenue account, than by paying it into a special revenue account. The distinction attempted to be drawn between the morality of these two courses is an absurdity.
#4
12. Further on Sir John Pope Hennessy observes: "But the opposite policy of Sir "Hercules Robinson and myself on this subject was not confined to Hong Kong. The Ceylon Ordinance No. 17, of 1867, is the Contagious Diseases Ordinance. It was "introduced under the Government of Sir Hercules Robinson, and passed, as the "official report states, in accordance with the instructions of Her Majesty's Govern- "ment." He proceeds to state that on his arrival in Mauritius he found a similar Ordinance in the list of legislative work, and that he at once put his veto on its progress. He adds: "Now that Mr. Stansfeld has induced the House of Commons to condemn
Z
E 24314.
178
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.