?༢༠༠༥
In 68 78/69
The Daily Press
HONGKONG, March 27th, 1869.
TRE SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AND THE GAMBLING QUESTION. The following report of the proceedings of the deputation is taken from the London and China Express.--
On Tuesday, the 9th February, to which day the reception of the deputation had been postponed by the Secretary of State, the following gentlemen, introduced by Mr. Chisholm Anstey, were received by Earl Granville, K.G., at the Colonial Office:--Dr. Aldis, Mr. Edgar, Mr. Frederick Hill, Mr. Crustnarao Pandoo-rung, and Mr. Pears. Mr. Murrow, late of Hongkong, was also present, and Colonel Sykes, M.P., and the Hon. Arthur Kinnaird, M.P., two vice-presidents of the Association, entered the room after the proceedings had commenced.
After thanking his Lordship for the reply to their second Memorial, Mr. C. Anstey stated the case against the two Hongkong Government farms of opium smoking-houses, and gambling houses, to which the two memorials of the Association (that of last year addressed to the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, and that of last month, both printed in this journal) referred. He commented at large upon the points raised by the now no longer apocryphal "despatch" of October 20th last, to the address of the secretary of this Association, and showed from documentary and even official proof the entire inaccuracy of every one of its material statements, and the entire unsoundness of every one of its relevant objections to their case. Upon the whole, he submitted that the following points were fully established:--That the project was originally one for raising local revenue in relief of the old Parliamentary grant; that it had been repeatedly scouted by former Secretaries of State; that the laws of China against gambling (which, under actual British rule, were quite capable of being applied in Hongkong) had never been applied there, although they were quite sufficient for its repression, and had so been found in China (of which Mr. Anstey mentioned many instances); that the only way to enforce any laws against gambling houses was by enforcing the Chinese laws of collective and mutual responsibility, by means of the tithing (Kea or Kap), and the hundred (Páou) institutions, which had been expressly recognised by the Hongkong Legislature in Ordinances, passed in 1844 and 1857, but never put into execution; that the only local ordinance against gambling-houses had been found to be so ill-penned as to be inoperative; that the Hongkong Government had never proposed to amend that ordinance; that it had never brought into play the criminal laws of England against gambling, although all those laws were in full validity within Hongkong; that the only reason which could be suggested for those omissions on the part of that Government was the notorious fact that for many years certain persons were carrying on the endeavours already alluded to for obtaining Imperial sanction here to the legalisation of gambling, in order to convert it into a profitable Government farm (in which intrigues the go-between was always Mr. Caldwell); that it was untrue to state that the Hongkong Government had exhausted penal means of repression, which was the main palliation now attempted for their having recently legalised under pretence of regulating it; and, lastly, that whilst some vicious practices might be said to be susceptible of regulation, gambling was the one vice of which that could not be said, nor was it even pretended, in the present instance, to regulate it, not even so far as to define the amount to be lost at one sitting. He referred also to the resolution of the Hongkong Chamber of Commerce of 1865, and the speeches of its chairman, Mr. Ryrie (member of the Legislative Council), and others of that Chamber, to the address of the local clergy, and to other authorities, as condemnatory of the late Ordinance, and certifying the nearly unanimous opinions of all respectable Chinese to the same effect.
Earl Granville, here interposing, said: You are preaching, I may almost say, to a convert. I go quite with your able statement of the mischief, and I quite sympathise with everything that you have said against the fitness of raising a revenue in this way. I have not yet communicated my decision to Hongkong. But I may say this much, that whatever that may hereafter be, I cannot approve of these proceeds of the gambling-house farm being treated as colonial revenue, or applicable to colonial purposes. Whether it may be employed specifically in defraying the charges of measures to suppress gambling, or in some analogous way to that, if we are to receive it at all, I shall have to consider if I determine to allow that experiment to continue. But what I should like to know from the deputation is, whether there is any practical way to the direct suppression in Hongkong, by penal means, of the practice. Our authorities there say that they have exhausted all those means and failed. You have offered reasons for contradicting that statement, and even for asserting that down to the introduction of this gambling farm no real attempt to suppress gambling had been made. This creates a difficulty in the way of my reversing at once what has been done. It is true that there is now the advantage of a new Government being called upon to consider the matter, but then without a few months' consideration one ought not to reverse what may have been done already. I should like to look at the practical question of the way to put down gambling, if there be any way to do it.
Mr. Anstey briefly restated what he had said, and referred again to the authorities on that point. He also submitted that the very next preceding Ordinance of 1866 to the Gambling Farm Ordinance was one relating to Registration. By that Ordinance the long neglected Chinese Law of Responsibility was, at length, ordered to be carried into effect (although very imperfectly no doubt). One year's trial of that Ordinance had enabled the present Registrar-General to report that this portion of it had proved to be very popular and efficacious, and in particular, that it had been found of material efficacy in suppressing "Public Gambling Houses."
Colonel Sykes, M.P.: And now all these licensed ones will escape from that.
Mr. Anstey assented. He proceeded to read from the report, and also from the Governor's despatch of October 29th, 1867, approving of that portion of it.
Earl Granville having asked for some of those references, Mr. Anstey offered to place all his own notes in his lordship's hands, and it was accordingly done.
Colonel Sykes, after referring to his long personal experience of the coasts of China, a country with which he was even now in "fortnightly correspondence," bore testimony to the accuracy of an important statement made by Mr. C. Anstey, as the result of his official experience at Hongkong, viz. that opium shop-keeping, gambling and piracy went hand-in-hand, and belonged everywhere to one establishment. He was satisfied that to regulate Chinese gambling houses is impossible; the only way is to be firm and put them down with the strong arm of the law.
Mr. Murrow confirmed another statement--viz., as to the persistence and success of the Chinese Government in putting Chinese laws against gambling-houses into effect. It was true that in the troubled times of 1865, at Canton, the Viceroy there for that one year only dispensed with those laws in favour of a particular locality; that is to say, the lanes in the immediate precincts of the two worst gaols of that city; but there was a characteristic irony in the exemption; it had expired, and gambling at Canton was crushed.
The Hon. A. Kinnaird, M.P.: We must not intrude any longer upon your lordship's valuable time, but I cannot help saying that the people here at home feel keenly upon this subject.
Earl Granville courteously thanked the deputation, and they took their leave.
?༢༠༠༥
In 68 78/69
The Daily Press
HONGKONG, March 27th, 1869.
TRE SOCIAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION AND THE GAMBLING QUESTION. Que following report ofthe proceedings of the deputation is taken from the London and China Express.--
On Tuesday, the 9th February, to which day the reception of the deputation had been postponed by the Secretary of State, the fol lowing gentlemen, introduced by Mr. Chisholm Anstey, were received by Earl Granville, K.G.. at the Colonia Office:--Dr. Aldis, Mr. Edgar, Mr. Frederick Hill, Mr. Crustnarao Pandoo- rung, and Mr. Pears. Mr. Murrow, late of Hongkong, wa3 also present, and Colonel Sykes, M.P., and the Hon. Arthur Kinnaird, M.P., two vice-presidents of the Association, entered the room after the proceedings bad commenced.
After thanking his Lordship for the reply .to their second Memorial, Mr. C. Anstey stated the case against the two Hongkong Go- ,vernment farms. of opium smoking-honses, and gambling houses, to which the two memorial of the Association (that of last year addressed to the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos, aud that of last month, both printed in this journal) referred. He commented at large upon the points raised by the now no longer apocryphal "despatch" of October 20th last, to the address. of the secretary of this Association, and showed from documentary and even official proof the entire inaccuracy of every one of its material .statements, and the entire unsoundness of every one of its relevant objections to their case, Upon the whole. he submitted that the follow- ing points were fully established :-Thatthe pro- ject was originally one for raising local revenue in relief of the old Parliamentary grunt; that it had been repeatedly scouted by former Se gretaries of State; that the laws of Chiu against gambling (which, under actual briti narces were quite capable of being applied in Hongkong) had never been applied there, al. thongh they were quite sufficient for its repres- sion, and bad so been found in China (of which Mr. Anstey mentioned many instances); that the only way to enforce any laws against gam bling bousea was by enforcing the Chinese laws of collective and mutual responsibility, by means of the tithing Kea or Káp), and the hundred (Páou institutions, which had boên expressly recognised by the Hongkong Le gislatore in Ordinances, passed in 1844 1857, but never put into execution; that the ouly localordinance against gambling-houses ind been found to be so ill-pentel as to be inopera. tive; that the Kongkong Government had never proposed to amend that ordinance; that it had never brought into play the criminal laws of Eagland against gambling, although all those laws were in full validity within Hongkong; that the only reason which could be suggested for those omissions on the part of that Government i was the notorious fact that for many years car: tain persons were carrying on the endeavours already alluded to for obtaining Imperial mic tion here to the legalisation of gambling, in order to convert it into a profitable Government farm (in which intriques the go-between was always Mr. Caldwell); that it was untrue to state that the Hongkong Government had exhausted penal incans of repression, which was the main palliation now attempted for their having re- cently legalised under pretence of regulating it; aud, lastly, that whilst some vicious practices might be said to be susceptible of regulation, gambling was the one vice of which that could not be said, nor was it even proended. in the present instance, to regalute it attr not even so far as to define the amount to be lost at one sitting. He referred aled ta' the resolution of the Hongkong Chamber of Co- merce of 1865, and the speeches of its chairman. Mr. Ryrie (member of the Legislative Council). and others of that Chaniber, to the dress! the local clergy, and to other authorities, a condemilatory of the late Ordinance, and certif
fying the nearly riftagimbas opinilīns of all rea pectable Chinese to the same effehn o
Earl Granville, bere euterposing, said: You are preaching, I may almost say, to a convert. I go quite with your able statement of the mis- chief, and I quite sympathise with everything that you have sail agains the fitness of raising a revenne in this way. I have not yet comma- uicated my decision to Hongkong. But I may say this much, that whatever that may hereafter he, I cannot/prove of these proceeds of the gambling-house farm being treated as colonial revenue, or applicable to colonial purposes. Whether it may be employed specifically in defraying the charges of measures to suppress gambling, or in some analogous way to that, if we are to receive it at all, I shall have to consider if 1 determine to allow that experiment to continue. But what I should like to know from the deputation is, whether there is any practical way to the direct suppression in Hong- koug, by penal means, of the practice. Our authorities there say that they have ex- bausted all those means and failed. You bave offered reasons for contradicting that state- ment, and even for asserting that down to the introduction of this gambling farmu no real ut- tempt to suppress gambling had been made. This creates a difficulty in the way of my ro- versing at once what has been done. It is true that there is now the advantage of a new Government being called upon to consider the matter, but then without a few months' con- sideration one ought not to reverse what may have beau done already. I should like to look at the practical question of the way to put down gambling, if there be any way to do it.
Mr. Anstey briefly restated what be bad said. and referred again to the authorities on that point. He also submtited that the very next preceding Ordinance of 1866 to the Gauub ling Farm Ordinance was one relating to Registration. By that Ordinance the long neglected Chinese Law of Responsibility was, at length, ordered to be carried into effect (although very imperfectly no doubt). One year's trial of that Ordinance had enabled the present Registrar-Geuern to report that this portion of it had proved to be very popular and Efficacions, and in particular, that it had bees found of waterial" efficacy in suppressing
Public Gumbling Houses,"
Colonel Sykes, M.P.: And now all these licensed ones will escape from that.
Mr. Anatey assented. He proceeded to read from the report, and also from the Governor's despatch of October 29th, 1867, approving of that portion of it.
Barl Granville having asked for some of those references, Mr. Anstey offered to place all⠀⠀ This owu notes in his lordship's hands, and it
was accordingly done.
Colonial Sykes, after referring to his long personal experience of the coasts of China, a country with which he was even now in "fort- nightly correspondence," bare testimony of the accuracy of ano important statement made by Mr. C. Auster, as the result of his official ex- perience at Hongkong, viz. that opium shop- keeping. gimbling and piracy went hand-in- band, and belonged everywhere to one esta. blishment. He was satisfied that to regulate Chines gambling bouses is impossible. only way is to be firm and put them down with the strong arm of the btw.
The
Mr. Murrow confirmed another statement- viz, as to the persistence and sweess of the Chinese Government in putting Chinese laws against gambling-hanses into effect. It was true) But in the troubled times of 1865, at Canton, the Viceroy there for that one year only dispensed with those laws in favour of a particular locality; that is to say, the lanes in the immediate pur lions of the two worst gaols of that city; but there was a characteristic irony in the exemp tion; it bad expired, and gambling at Canton
was crushed.
The Hon. A. Kinnaird. M.P.: We must not intrude any longer upon your lordship's valua- ble time, but I cannot help saying that the people here at home feel keenly upon this. sul et.
Earl Grauville courteously thanked the de putation, and they took their leave.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.