under the suo, but rogues and vagabonds who so freely come across here. I think in dealing with men of that type we have to consider the conditions under which they themselves live in their own country. In their own country torture is one of the smallest things they have to suffer. I need not expatiate on the various punishments imposed on malefactors in China. They are well known to us all. I wish to draw your attention to the experience of Shanghai. There the bamboo, the cangue and the stocks were abolished inside the Settlement, although outside these methods of punishment and torture and other methods were freely in vogue. There, instead of twenty minutes to get over the border it takes at the utmost ten. What was the consequence of the removal of these methods of punishment? The consequence was that crime increased by leaps and bounds, and the prisons were soon full, showing that two or three days in the municipal gaol was no deterrent whatever. These things, Sir, I think, should be considered very carefully by all members of the Council before voting for the Bill now before them. I have the greatest admiration for our Chinese fellow subjects who have emancipated themselves from the old style which obtains across the border, but I maintain that if they studied the best interests of their nationals they would, instead of trying to mitigate the forms of punishment, assist you, Sir, and all concerned in the Government, in making it absolutely plain in a most effective way as regards rogues and vagabonds that we have no place for them (applause).
Hon. Dr. Ho Kai—Sir, I did not intend to speak on this Bill but I think after the remarks of the hon. gentleman opposite a few words from me are necessary. I do not think the hon. member could have studied the Bill. This Bill is not to take the punishment by means of stocks away altogether from the statute. It simply limits that punishment to certain crimes which ought to be punished by some effective punishment; crimes like larceny, robbery, returning from banishment and others. So-called municipal crimes, crimes which are created by law for good order in the place, such as obstruction, hawking without licenses and so on, are crimes which, we think, ought not to be punishable by stocks. The hon. gentleman was also under a misapprehension. It is not only a small section of the Chinese community who advocate the Bill. I may say the great majority of the Chinese are in favour of it. I quite admit there were some who wished to go further, but the majority of the Chinese thought a Bill such as the one before the Council would be suitable. I am sure there need be no misapprehension that, if the Bill is passed, crime will be on the increase, because the more serious crimes are still punishable by stocks, if thought necessary by the magistrate. If the imposition of stocks were made more universal, to apply not only to Chinese but others as well, it would take away a great deal of the opposition of the majority of the Chinese to this mode of punishment.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I think the hon. gentleman opposite has correctly interpreted the effect of the Bill. I have here returns showing the number of prisoners sentenced to stocks in the year 1906, and I find that all serious offences would still be punishable by stocks assuming this Bill is passed. The particular offences not punishable by stocks are in the main offences of a minor degree. For instance under the Licensing Ordinance stocks were imposed during the year 1906. That would no longer apply. Then there are two offences under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. They would no longer apply. Neither would a number of police offences. All the more serious offences, however, appear still to be retained, and I do not think my hon. friend at the end of the table need have any great apprehension that crime would be increased by the proposed depreciation of the punishment.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY—Sir, As one who had the duty of maintaining law and order in the Colony for nine years, I have no hesitation in saying I do not think the Bill will
Page 577
in any way weaken the hands of the authorities in suppressing crime—what may be legitimately called crime.
HIS EXCELLENCY—The hon. gentleman at the end of the table said I had not been long in the Colony. That is very true, but I have been here long enough to give very careful consideration to this Bill which is of exceptional interest. I was particularly struck in studying the papers by the argument that if punishment by stocks was made too common, law-abiding people like the Chinese would cease to be able to recognise criminals whom public opinion really condemned. I think that is a very strong argument, gentlemen. In such a case, when law-abiding citizens went down the street and saw any prisoner in the stocks, they would recognise his features and could at any time afterwards take measures of precaution against him. If on the other hand the person is put in the stocks for petty offences such for instance as hawking, or some of the others to which the Attorney-General alluded, we will cease to carry with us the public opinion of the large majority of the lower class Chinese. I think that is a very important point. Beyond that remark I have nothing further to say than what was said by the Attorney-General, that the Bill in no way weakens the hands of the Government or detracts from our power to impose a penalty in accordance with tradition and with the law of the Colony for many years past (applause).
The Bill was read a second time, and the Council went into committee to consider it clause by clause.
On resuming, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL reported that the Bill had passed through committee without amendment and moved that it be read a third time.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the Bill was read a third time, passed and became law.
THE ESTIMATES.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved that Council resolve itself into a committee of the whole Council to consider the Bill entitled An Ordinance to apply a sum not exceeding Four million nine hundred and ninety-two thousand nine hundred and fifty-three Dollars to the Public Service of the year 1908.
The COLONIAL TREASURER seconded, and Council went into committee.
On resuming, the COLONIAL SECRETARY reported that the Bill had passed through the committee without amendment, and moved that it be read a third time.
The COLONIAL TREASURER seconded, and the Bill was read a third time and became law.
PUBLIC NOTARIES ORDINANCE.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—With regard to the next order of the day, Sir, I do not propose to move that Council go into committee on the Bill relating to the appointment of notaries.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE—If your Excellency will permit me, although I am not in order, I would like now, as I am leaving next week for North China, to bring to the notice of the Council certain facts which
I have been asked to bring forward. As they are of a somewhat technical nature I will, with your Excellency's permission, read some extracts from the letter addressed to me—"In England only those persons who have served articles for five years, in London for seven years, to a notary public are themselves appointed notaries."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—On a point of order. I have not moved the second reading of the Bill and it would not be open for me to reply to any observations of the hon. gentleman. I would therefore suggest to him that he reserves any observations on the Bill he wishes to make until I am ready to move the second reading.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE—I understood the second reading had been moved.
His EXCELLENCY—The second reading was postponed.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY—I think if the hon. member were to forward the letter he has received, it would receive every consideration.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE—Yes, Sir.
SEDITIOUS PUBLICATIONS ORDINANCE.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Before moving the third reading of the Bill to prevent the publication of seditious matter, I would say that
under the suo, but rogues and vagabonds who so freely come across here. I think in dealing with mon of that typo we have to consider the conditions under which they themselves live in their own country. In their own country torture is one of the smallest things they have to suffer. I need not expatiate on the various punishmenta imposed on malefactors in China. They are well known to us all. I wish to draw your attention to the experience of Shanghai. There the bamboo, the cangue and the stooks wer abolished inside the Settlement, although outside these methods of punishment and torture and other methods were freely in vogue. There, instead of twenty minutes to get over the border it takes at the utmost ten. What was the consequence of the removal of these methods of punishment? The consequence Was that crime increased by leaps and bounds, and the prisons were soon full, howing that two of three days in the municipal gaol was no deterrent whatever. These things, Sir, I think, should be considered very carefully by all members of the Council before voting for the Bill now before them. I have the greatest admiration for our Chinese follow subjects who have emancipated them? selves from the old style which obtains across the border, but I maintain that if they studied the best interests of their nationals they would, instoad of trying to mitigate the forms of punishment, assist you, Sir, and all concerned in the Government, in making it absolutely plain in a most effective way as regards rogues and vagabonds that we have no place for them (applause.)
Hon, Dr. Ho Kar-Sir, I did not intend to speak on this Bill but I think after the remarks of the hon. gentleman opposite a few words from me are necessary. I do not think the hon. member could have studied the Bill. This Bill is not to take the punishment by means of stocks away altogether from the statute. It simply limits that punishment to certain crime crimes which ought to be punished by some effective punishment; crimes like larceny, robbery, returning from banishment and others. So-called municipal crimes, crimes which are created by law for good order in the place, such as obstruction, hawking without licenses and so on, are crimes which, we think, ought not to be punishable by stocks. The hon, gentleman was also under a misapprehension. It is not only a small section of the Chinese community who advocate the bill. I may say the great majority of the Chinese are in favour of it. I quite admit there were some who wished to go further, bat the majority of the Chinese thought a bill such as the one before the Council would be sait- able. I am sure there need be no misapprehension that, if the Bill is passed, crime will be on the increase, because the more serious crimes are still punishable by stocks, if thought necessary by the magistrate. If the imposition of stocks were made more universal, to apply not only to Chinese but others as well, it would take away & great deal of the opposition of the majority of the Chinese to this mode of punishment.
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL-I think the hon. gentleman opposite has correctly interpreted the effect of the Bill. I have here returns showing the number of prisoners sentenced to stocks in the year 1906, and I find that all serions offences would still be punishable by stocks assuming this bill is passed. The particular offences not punishable by stocks are in the main offences of a minor degree. For instance under the Licensing Ordinanos stocks were imposed during the year 1906. That would no longer apply. Then there are two 01589 under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. They would no longer apply. Neither would a number of police offences. All the more serious offences, however, appear still to be retained, and I do not think my hon. friend at the end of the table need have any great apprehension that crime would be increased by the proposed depreciation of the punishment,
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-Sir, As one who had the duty of maintaining law and order in the Colony for nine years, I have no hesitation in saying I do not think tho Bill will
577
in any way weaken the hands of the authorities ia suppressing erime-what may be legitimatel called crime.
HIS EXCELLENCY-The hon. gentleman at the end of the table said I had not been long in the Colony. That is very true, but I have been here long enough to give very careful considera- tion to this Bill which is of exceptional interest. I was particularly struck in studying the papers by the argument that if punishment by stooks was made too common, law abiding people like the Chinese would cease to be able to recognise criminals whom public opinion really condemned. I think that is a very strong argument, gentle- men. In such a oase, when lawabiding citizens went down the street and saw any prisoner in the stocks, they would recognise his features and could at any time afterwards take measures of precaution against him. It on the other hand the person is put in the stocks for petty offences such for instance as hawking, or some of the others to which the Attorney-General alluded, we will cease to carry with us the public opinion of the large majority of the lower class Chinese. I think that is a very important point. Beyond that remark I have nothing further to say than what Was said by the Attorney General, that the Bill in no way weakens the hands of the Government or detracts from our power to impose a penalty in accordance with tradition and with the law of the Colony for many years past (applause).
The Bill was read a second time, and the Con neil went into committee to consider it clause by clause.
On resuming, the ATTORNEY-GENERAL re- ported that the Bill had passed through committee without amendment and moved that the read a third time.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY seconded, and the bill was read a third time, passed and becama law.
THE ESTIMATES,
The COLONIAL SECRETARY moved that Council resolve itself into a committee of tho whole council to consider the Bill entited Ax Ordinance to apply a sum not exceeding Four million nine hundred and ninety-two thousand nine hundred and fifty-three Dollars to tho Public Service of the year 1908.
The COLONIAL TREASURER seconded, and Connoil went into committee.
On resuming, the COLONIAL SECRETARY reported that the Bill had passed through the committee without amendment, and moved that it be read a third time,
The COLONIAL TREASURES seconded, and the Bill was redd a third time and became law.
PUBLIC NOTARIES ORDINANCE. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-With regard to the next order of the day, Sir, I do not pro- pose to move that Council go into committee on the Bill relating to the appointment of notaries, Hon. Mr. OSBORNE-If your Excellency will permit me, although I am not in order, I would like now, as I am leaving next week for North Chins, to bring to the notice of the Council certain facts which
I have been asked to bring forward. As they are of a somewhat technical natare I will, with your Excellency's permission, read some extracta from the letter addressed to me-" In England only those persons who have served artioles for five years, in London for seven years, to a no- tary pablio aro themselves appointed notaries"
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL-On a point of order. I have not moved the second reading of the Bill and it would not be open for me to reply to any observations of the hon. gentleman. I would therefore suggest to him that he reserves any observations on the Bill he wishes to make until I am ready to move the second reading.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE-I understood the second reading had been moved.
His EXCELLENCY-The second reading was postponed.
The COLONIAL SECRETARY-I think if the hon. member were to forward the letter he has received, it would receive every consideration.
Hon. Mr. OSBORNE.-Yo8, Bir.
SEDIOTIOUS PUBLICATIONS ORDINANCE. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—Before moving the third reading of the Bill to prevent t publication of seditions matter, I would sak that
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.