CO882-6 — Page 11

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

PELLIC.O. 882

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

6 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

9187.

10

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

No. 6.

GOVERNOR SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL to the MARQUESS OF RIPON.

(No. 166.)

(Received May 27, 1895.)

[Answered by No. 10.]

MY LORD,

Government House, Singapore, April 30, 1895. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordship's despatch, No. 436, of the 28th of December last, on the subject of the Women and Girls' Protection Ordinance.

2. Having received reports upon the proposals which Your Lordship makes for further amendments of the Ordinance, and having fully considered the whole matter, I submit, for Your Lordship's information, a copy of a memorandum drawn up by a -Committee of the Executive Council, and adopted by the Council, showing the action

which it is proposed to take.

3. A bill will be prepared to effect the amendments referred to in paragraphs 2 and 6, and the necessary instructions will be issued to the Protector of Chinese as to the matters mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 5.

4. As regards Dr. Mugliston's treatment of women, referred to in paragraph 12 of Your Lordship's despatch, I have reported separately in my despatch, No. 113, of the 8th instant.†

5. In view of the arguments contained in paragraph 1 of the memorandum, I would ask Your Lordship to permit section 14 of Indian Act 48 of 1860 to remain in force without substituting the provisions proposed in the despatch of the 17th of April 1894.+

Enclosure in No. 6.

I have, &c.,

C. B. H. MITCHELL.

REPORT OF COMMITTEE OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL appointed on the 6th April, 1895, with reference to the Secretary of State's despatch, No. 436, of 1894.

1.

In the 4th paragraph of his despatch, the Secretary of State recommends that the initiation of proceedings against a brothel should rest with private house- holders, instead of being left to the police, and states that the requirement that three householders should act together would reduce the risk of blackmailing, which might possibly occur in connection with such proceedings. Governor to introduce an Ordinance repealing section 14 of Indian Act 48 of 1860, and He therefore requests the substituting the provisions proposed in the Secretary of State's despatch of the 17th April, 1894. In the 5th paragraph of the despatch (No. 113 of 1894), the Secretary of State recommends that section 10 of Ordinance XIV. of 1888 should be repealed and a new section passed on the lines of the following clause contained in Indian Act XXI. of 1857.

"On the complaint of three or more householders that a house in their immediate neighbourhood is used as a common brothel or lodging house for prostitutes or disorderly persons of any description, to the annoyance of the respectable inhabitants of the vicinity, the Magistrate may summon the owner or tenant of the house to answer the complaint, and on being satisfied that the house is so used, and is therefore a source of annoyance and offence to the neighbours, may order the owner or tenant to discontinue such use of it, and if he shall fail to comply with such order within five days, may impose upon him a fine to the extent of Rs.25 for every day thereafter that the house shall be so used."

With regard to this proposal, we desire to draw attention to three facts:-

(a) Section 14 of Indian Act 48 of 1860 was itself passed in substitution for section 55 of Indian Act 13 of 1856, under which prosecutions against brothels had to be under-

• No. 1.

↑ No. 5,

No. 19 in [H. C. 147], June, 1894.

11

taken by three householders. Presumably, therefore, the latter provision was not found to work well, and it was repealed after four years' trial by section 1 of Indian Act 48 of 1860.

(b) There is nothing in section 14 of Indian Act 48 of 1860 which prevents three, or any other number, of householders from prosecuting if they desire to do so. The section simply enables the police to prosecute if they wish. It in no way excludes the rights of householders to prosecute.

(c) In an Asiatic community it is extremely unlikely that householders would take the trouble to prosecute a brothel. Such a system may work well in an English parish and yet be quite unsuitable for a Colony like the Straits Settlements. One of the first principles of Asiatic life is to mind your own business, and not interfere with that of other people, while in an English parish there are always a number of people who take a higher view of their public duties.

We recommend, therefore, that the law be allowed to remain as it is, and that section 14 of Indian Act 48 of 1860 be not repealed.

2. In the 5th paragraph of his despatch, the Secretary of State refers to the emigration of women to Johor and Kedah, where brothel-slavery is recognised by the State Government, and expresses the view that this evil could be partially remedied, notwithstanding the abolition of brothel registration, by a slight amendment of the Women and Girls Protection Ordinance, namely, by amending section 5 of the Ordi- nance so as to make it apply (like section 14 of Hongkong Ordinance 11 of 1890) to women and girls who are being obtained or disposed of for purposes of emigration, as well as to those girls who are being trained or used for immoral purposes. this amendment should be made.

We think

3. In paragraph 7 of his despatch, the Secretary of State expresses the view that the "ticket system" should be continued in a modified form. We agree with this view, and think that it can be sufficiently carried out by instructions to the Protector of Chinese, without any legislation.

He

4. In paragraph 8 of his despatch the Secretary of State refers to the alleged presence for immoral purposes of young girls in eating houses and opium shops. recommends that women should be altogether excluded from opium shops, and that provisions should be enacted similar to sections 14 and 15 of the Imperial "Licensing Act, 1872," forbidding the use of any licensed premises as a brothel or as a resort for prostitutes. This proposal affects three kinds of shop, each of which must be considered separately, namely:-

(a) The opium shop. "The Opium Ordinance, 1894," is about to be amended, and we think the proposal to entirely exclude women should be adopted.

(b) The public house. Rules have already been made under "The Liquors Ordinance, 1894," and by Rule 2 it is provided that no drunkenness, disorder, or gambling shall be permitted on the premises, nor shall prostitutes be allowed to frequent the same." We think this provision is sufficient, and that this Ordinance need not be specially amended at present, but should other amendments in the Ordinance be found necessary, the opportunity might be taken to insert sections similar to sections 14 and 15 of the

Imperial Licensing Act, 1872."

(C

(c) The eating shop. These are licensed under section 5 of Indian Act 3 of 1863, and prostitutes might be forbidden to frequent these houses either by a clause in the licenses to that effect, or by a rule to be made under the provisions of the Indian Act by the Inspector-General of Police.

5. With regard to paragraph 9 of the Secretary of State's despatch, we think that directions should be given to the Protector of Chinese which would put a stop to the medical examination, which the Secretary of State regards as very objectionable.

6. In paragraph 10 of his despatch the Secretary of State expresses the opinion that clause (ii) (and we presume also clause (iii.)) of sub-section (1) of section 4 of Ordinance XIV. of 1888 should be amended by introducing in their place provisions similar to sections 5 and 10 of Hongkong Ordinance 11 of 1890. We agree that this should be done, its object being to make the traffic in young girls under 16 years of age a punishable offence even in the absence of false pretence, false representation, or fraudulent or deceitful means.

C. B. H. MITCHELL, T. H. KERSHAW,

Acting Attorney-General.

A. P. TALBOT.

Singapore, April 18, 1895.

1919

B 2

77714.

12

STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.

No. 7.

The MARQUESS OF RIPON to GOVERNOR SIR C. B. H. MITCHELL. (No. 165.) SIR,

Downing Street, May 29, 1895.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 113, of the 8th ultimo,* and to request you to convey my thanks to Dr. Mugliston for his explana- tions respecting his system of private medical attendance on the inmates of brothels.

I have, &c.,

10612.