CO129-193 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [5-7] — Page 119

alumps

211

reward. Section XXIII of Ordinance No. 8 of 1858, which by its title applies to Chinese only,

reads mildly enough "mendicaney in the public

highways or streets is hereby forbidden," but

Section XXVIII provides the following penalties

for every offence against Section XXIII," a sum not exceeding five dollars; or the offender shall,

at the discretion of the Court, receive not more

than thirty-six blows nor less than five blows with

a rattan, and be deported to his native country,

or, with the consent of such offender, to any other

place, if His Excellency the Governor shall so decide.” Ordinance No. 6 of 1866, Section XXI

of which also applies to Chinese only, provides that every master of a junk bringing into the

Colony any persons who shall, in the opinion of the Court before which the offence shall be tried,

have come to the Colony for the purpose of men-

dicancy, or any person suffering from leprosy or

any other contagious diseases, shall be liable to

pay a fine not exceeding ten dollars and not less than one dollar for every such person so brought

by him as aforesaid." Ordinance No. 8 of 1876,

Section XV enacts, "any person convicted before

a Magistrate of mendicancy in this Colony shall

be liable to a fine not exceeding five dollars, or,

in default thereof, to imprisonment with or with-

out hard labour, not exceeding twenty-one days,

or, in the discretion of the Magistrate, shall be liable to be whipped thirty-six strokes and be sent to his native place.”

This is therefore all that the Law of Hongkong

offers to destitutes, fine and imprisonment with or without hard labour, and, in the case of Chinese, also whipping and deportation to the destitute's native conntry, or, if the destitute be a native of Hongkong, to that delightfully vague region designated by the Ordinance as

any other place."

None of these Ordinances defines its terins as

relating to the destitute. Some are professedly

be, with what intent a pauper may come to Hong-

trate's discretion to decide what mendicity may

pieces of class legislation, leave it to the Magis || 15207;

This

kong, or what purpose a man with a canker in

his face may have in walking through the streets, and finally leave it also to the Magistrate's discre- tion, which practically means his temper, to say when it may please him to fine and imprison or to whip and deport.

This condition of the law regarding Chinese destitutes, being exclusively repressive and deter-

rent, is certainly not humane. But it is not even rational, unless poverty and destitution are to be [considered as a crime. For if destitution is con- sidered as what it really is, viz. a misfortune, and if we remember that all the world over, whenever the poor are left to private charity, a certain amount of mendicity is inevitable, it will be apparent that it is neither humane nor reason- able for the Government to have no other remedy to offer for the misfortune of its Chinese subjects nor for the natural consequences of such misfor- tune but that of fine, imprisonment, whipping and deportation. Hongkong was once supposed to be likely to serve as a model Colony to exhibit

+

用以詿案等語又查一千八百五十八年第八條則例有專指華人而 巡理府斷案者可罰銀如不能輸項則監禁及有無苦工不等但

錢不過五大圓或可將犯此之人鞭笞隨該官意但多不過三十六籐 【者此則例内第二十三歎若用溫婉之言而說有云在通衢大道當 八百七十六年第八條例第十五欸有如此云凡有人爲慣乞事在 過十大圓又不得少過一大圓依彼載如此之人來港照寞又查一千 有別色人如患瘋瘡者或有別症可傳染者如此可將船主擬罰但不 云凡有本土船主載人入港若該管衙門疑此人來港因欲慣乞或另 定奪又查一千八百六十六年則例第二十一款亦只專指華人者有 少不過五籐又可將該人解同原藉如該犯自願徙往別處則由總督 衆之處不得慣但第二十八欸定云凡有人犯第二十三欸者可罰

罰條

理銀則

過

府如例大 有

意不第圓別

可能十依

鞭輸五彼可管例

欵載傳衙第如 答 項有如染門 該 隨

十 犯

不過二十一天或隨巡理府意可鞭三十六籐解阀原藉

任監則有任

任性歟

香港是其原藉則遣往該則例用極恍 銀及監禁有無苦工窮窘者若是華 人鞭笞解抖原籍倘或該窮窘之人在 故香港則例所有施與窮籍人者不過

意該該

恩則則該

蓋例例竈

者意中嘗

又定有說

此種辦理窮窘華人之例徒有禁

命有事

及乖篇是

姓憶道罪

舉理則

則例乂准巡理府隨意定奪或罰錢或 有熱毒之症心中懷有若何之意而該 幸中所生之患難則必至不近人情 任由定奪凡有奔走路途之人面上生 外苟別無法辦理本土民由不 奪孰爲慣乞孰因無賴而來本港者又 可見國家除奲銀監禁鞭笞遷徙而 僅關本港一等人者又任巡理府意定 必有慣於行乞而無由杜絕者如是 定窮窘慣乞等語有何意思蓋其中有 處若濟貧事任由百姓自行辦理則 惚之言所稱之別處按該則例未嘗說,窮窘之事爲苦命及舉世不論何 謂必稱窮窘之事爲罪則該則例不 監禁或鞭笞或遷徙如是其能保無有

暗之中人謂幾若蠻夷之異族如是 地一區可作中華模範蓋彼如坐幽 乖違道理矣尚有人意謂香港乃藩

但不近人情且有乖道理矣但若稱 恐嚇攔阻等意貫是不近人情倘非

無銀

واحمد

之蓋讚

艮笞

如坐乃

是幽藩

before the view of the benighted so-called semi- civilized pagans of China the bright example of 有獲之 a Christian Government and a civilized coinmu- nity. And indeed when we compare the state of things in Hongkong with that of England we seem to have someting to boast of by way of the blood-bought results of this unchristian mode of dealing with the poor and the destitute. Whilst according to the Statesman's Year-Book for 1880

(p. 243) the number of paupers, exclusive of vagrants and casual poor, in receipt of public relief in the several unions and parishes of England and Wales in 1879, amounting to 800,426, is Bu that there is at present one pauper to every thirty persons in England and Wales, we have in a population of over 140,000 Chinese in Hong- kong not one pauper in receipt of Government or Colonial relief, and the actual number of paupers in the Colony may safely be estimated not to exceed a few hundred. But, however successful the results of this barbaric policy of brute repres- sion may appear on the surface, the mean employed to secure these results are anything but creditable to a Christian Government or a civilized community.

3.—Dangers to be avoided in dealing with destitutes in Hongkong.

As regards foreign destitutes, who are aliens, it is obvious that with the aid afforded by the private charity of the various nationalities repre- sented among the residents of Hongkong, under the guidance of their respective Consuls, the condition of those foreign destitutes, who are aliens, Government interference would be entirely uncalled for. In the case of non-descript foreign destitutes, disowned by their respective Consuls, and in the case of British destitutes, anything done by the Government over and above what is now being done in furnishing such destitutes with board and lodging in the Gaol, would tend to inake the situation of a " beach comber "

destitute here more eligible than the lot of a hardworking seaman or stoker, and consequently put a premium on loafing and idleness. Portu- guese destitutes also may well be left to the care of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul which, in -case of special need, will know how to apply to Government for aid.

As regards Chinese destitutes it may fairly be conceded, that, barbaric as the provisions of such local Ordinances are as those of No. 8 of 1858 and No. 8 of 1876 which authorise whipping and deportation in simple cases of mendicancy, they were no doubt prompted by the danger which does lie near, on account of the proximity of the Chinese frontier, that indiscriminate and lavish aid afforded in Hongkong to destitutes, be it by the Government or by private charity, would practically act like a magnet attracting from all the nooks and corners of the Canton Province swarms of professional beggars and lepers to a Colony like this where money is more plentiful than anywhere in the province of Canton. It must also be considered that the lot of a

or

乎獲益甚大而用此取締之道叉鳥能網於信耶穌之國 惟彼西洋人之窮窘者似可任由聖保祿濟貧會辦理

烈之例以殘忍之心幽囚窮窘之人就其外者而觀之 受國家或本港之餉約計港中無賴者可云百數但此猛 三十停一惟香港華人溢於十四萬而竟未有一無賴者

宰臣年報 第二百四十三篇所言於一千八百七十九年 麻道而待窮籍人之法致有血氣所生之故也照現年 使彼目信耶穌之國家及有禮儀之衆庶其中所有之 三辦理香港窮窘者之事所免之危險 十六人核較大英本土及威兒士二國民數計無賴者居 現牢房內飲食棲宿外另行助此窮窘之人則恐 遭貧困者外計無賴徒領受國餉者八十萬零零四百二 民未有領事官認之者與屬英籍之窮窘人倘國家除 在大英本土及威兒士二國各縣之册除無藉流民及數 無庸謂國家必須干涉其事此理顯然惟尙有無藉瀧 光若將香港情形較諸英國庶幾果有叫誇以用不合瑜 致於外國不屬英籍之窮窘人諒蒙各國居港者濟其 之榜人似此叉奚異於閒遊蕩者爲之大加獎賞 俗稱水老鼠及窮窘人之遭逢較勝勤勞之舟子燒火

窮窘及伊領事官爲之辦理故凡不屬英藉之窮人

家有畷儀之衆庶實有榮焉

鞭笞遷徙所以如此者因該例原意 各欸殊猛烈蓋爲慣乞案情斷

則例一千八百五十八年第八條及 一千八百七十六年第八條等所定 廣東內地故也要之中國行乞之人 疾之人擁集疾趨來港以香港富於 作指南轉使廣東一帶所有行乞瘋 家與及居民周邮過易誠恐爲乞人

致於華人之窮窘者本亦可云本港 香港逼近華人地方如果本港國

與窮窘之輩其命原非極苦者蓋在

厥事如有格外緊急之情彼自可禀求國家周邮

116