It has now been reversed under the existing Rules absolutely without authority from the Secretary of State.
I would suggest that the new Rule should be amended to the following extent:
Seeing that the approval of the Governor is necessary before any flogging can be inflicted, I should incline to allow the Superintendent to inflict flogging of strokes in the cases provided under Rule 280, though the number of strokes for Adults & Juveniles respectively should be reduced to 12 & 6.
In Rules 291(1) & 293, I would omit the words referring to the "cat-o'-nine tails." I think it would be better to avoid the use of this weapon altogether. I send herewith a specimen of the "Hongkong 'cat'." It is not a ferocious instrument of its kind, but is, I understand, used across the shoulders, and appears to me in itself rather a savage barbarity.
I would also reduce the number of strokes allowed under Rule 291 to 24, 12.
In Rule 294, the number of strokes should be reduced to 24, 12 respectively.
My proposal would be that the Rules should be less severe than those allowed in the Home Prisons service, but they should conform to the instructions contained in our Despatch of 18/7/79 as modified by the Circular of .../.../.... As I have stated, there was more flagrant abuse before 1896 than there is in the Home Prisons, where every flogging for prison offences has to receive the sanction of the Home Secretary.
Again, I think there is far greater possibility of abuse in the punishment of natives in this Colony than in the punishment of Englishmen in this manner.
We must certainly strongly criticise their action in framing new Rules without reference to previous existing instructions.
Rule 310: I think the rearrangement of the gratuity system under which European Prisoners can earn somewhat larger gratuity than Asiatics is reasonable.
We should insist on the amendment of the Flogging provisions, & perhaps also some amendment in some of the other points to which I have referred.
I had not time to send ...
P.C.M.
Lord Selborne
25/10
There are various details in these rules - some mentioned in the above minute - with which we need not trouble Mr. Chamberlain & yourself, but we want Mr. Chamberlain's decision on the flogging question.
Will you look at the minute and Despatch of 18/7/79, 96.
Flogging in Hongkong according to Mr. Chamberlain's instructions may only be up to 20 strokes with the birch.
Those instructions ought only to have been embodied in the new rules unless they had been modified by the Secretary of State, & this should be commented on rather strongly.
But I think the instructions...
---12-435---2000-1-90 16195-2000-4-90
ーで
1
E
now been reversed under the existing Rules absolutely without authionty from the Secretary of Plucki.
I would
suggest
that the new Rule should be antiped to the following extent :
Seeing that the approval of the your is
necessary before any flow you can be inflected I should incline to allow the but
Supt to inflect flogging
of sticker in the cases
should be reduced
ander Rule 280, though the number
f
Adulti & Juschiler respectively
b. 12 86.
In 291 (1) & 293 I would omit the words referring to the (ut`o'nine tails. I think it would be better to avoid the whe
of
of the
this weapon altogether. Irend on herewith a specimen "the Hongkong "cat". It is not a ferocious instrument of it kind, but is, I andersand, used across the shoulders, &
to me
in itself rather a
this
scalur
barbarity.
I would also reduce the number of sticker allowed
Rule 291
to 24 9 12.
In Rule 294 the
nucaber
f
24812 respectively.
stocher should be reduced to
Spropose would be
It is time that the Rules) less revere than those
Wwvakk
allowed in the Home Preims service, but they com conform
to the instructions contained in our Jespatch on 18179 as modified by the Circular of with may gy-
as I have stated there was
moreover there is for greater possibility of abrese in.
a fday, (in Hongkong
flagrant abuse before (896) than there is in the tome scherze, where every
flogging for prison offences has to receive the sauction of the "Home Prison Rul
Home Seculary. Again I think there is far greater possibility of abrese in the punishment of nativer in this mother in the poor by prides iffe cour of Aseatics
I then in the punishment of Englishmen in this manner_
We must certainty stingly criticise their action in harring
new Ruzes without reference to previous existinctions,
passed there
( & L (8) ---12-435---2000-1-90 16195-2000-4-90
Reele 310. I think the rearrangement of
the
Gratuit 156
system under which European Prisoners can eas somewhat larger gratuity than Arcnters is reasonable.
? We should insist on the amendment of the Hoging provisions, & perhaps also durct
awondwent in some
of the other points to which I have referred.
this in somer]
II had not time to send
There
P.C.M.
Lord Selborne
25/10
are varione details in there mulie -Some mentioned in the above minute-
Which M Marnaghten
& Duill see
α
to d with which we need not trouble M- Chamberlain &
yourself, but we
Want M. Chamberlain's decision on
the flogging question.
Will you
look at the minuter and
chaft on 19179.96
Flogging of Hongkong according to
a
Hương
In Chamberlain's instructions may only
be up to 20 Strother d
ap
the birch
Those instructions ought
only be with
to have been
embodied in the new rules unless
they had been modified by the Secretary
State & this should (be commented
જા
прот
rather strongly
But I think the instructions
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.