683548-1880-Domestic-Servitude-Further-papers-published- — Page 8

178 THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 18TH FEBRUARY, 1880.

17th November, 1874.

R. G. O. Cuse No. 53.

Complainant: W. F. WHITEHEAD, Inspector of Brothels.

Defendant: Su-A-KIU, 42, Native of Canton,

17th November, 1874.

CHAN-A-KWAI, declared, states:-My grand-daughter, A-IIo, 22 years of age, was sick and she bor- rowed some money. In order to repay the money she purposed being a prostitute and so earning money. The Defendant, with whom I was acquainted, was in the Colony. With the Defendant's uncle, I and A-Ho went to the Defendant's house in Tai-ping Shan Street. The Defendant said she knew a brothel in Singapore, kept by a friend, where A-Ho could go and get business. A-Ho promised to serve the Defendant for eight months, and was to receive $52. She was to serve the Defendant as a prostitute in the Singapore brothel. The Defendant promised to pay the money as the steamer was going. The Defendant paid the money, and A-Ho handed it to me. A-Ho left on 26th of the 8th moon of this year for Singapore. I saw her on board with the Defendant. On the evening of the 4th day of the 10th moon I received the [produced 4] letter from A-Ho, which is to the effect that she had been sold for $250 to another party. On the 26th or 27th of the 9th month I had received a letter [produced B from A-Ho asking for clothes. It was brought me by the Defendant. On receiving the other letter (A), I went to the Defendant and asked her why she had sold my grand-daughter for $250 for two years? The Defendant promised to take me to Singapore to see my grand-daughter. I asked her to find security that she would produce my grand-daughter, if I went to Singapore. Yesterday morning the man who lives with the Defendant came to my house and said he would accuse me of extortion. He told me that he lived by selling women into brothels of Singapore. I came and reported the case at this Office.

B]*

The Defendant states:-I took A-Ho to Singapore. I took her to the "Sai-Shing-Tong" brothel in Macao Street. She is still in that brothel.

Ordered to find security in the sum of $100 to appear to answer any charge within the next three months.

The Complainant, CHAN-A-KWAI, also ordered to find similar security in the sum of $70.

REPORT BY MR. C. C. SMITH, 2ND NOVEMBER, 1866.

BROTHEL ORDINANCE.

CECIL C. SMITH, Registrar General.

*

*

*

*

*

There is another matter connected with the brothels licensed and unlicensed, in Hongkong, which almost daily assumes a graver aspect. I refer to what is no less than the trafficking in human flesh between the brothel keepers and the vagabonds of the Colony. Women are bought and sold in nearly every brothel in the place. They are induced by specious pretexts to come to Hongkong, and then after they are admitted into the brothels such a system of espionage is kept over them, and so frightened do they get, as to prevent any application to the Police. They have no relatives, no friends to assist. then, and their life is such that, unless goaded into unusual excitement by a long course of ill-treatment, they sink down under the style of life they are forced to adopt, and subunit patiently to their masters. But cases have occurred where they have run away and placed themselves in the hands of the Police, who, however, can do nothing towards punishing the offenders for the lack of evidence, the women being afraid to tell their tale in open Court. Women have, it is true, willingly allowed themselves to be sold for some temporary gain, but that brothel keepers shall be allowed to enter into such transactions I have myself tried to fix such a case on more than one brothel keeper, but is of serious moment. failed to do so, though there was no doubt of the transaction as I held the Bill of Sale.* The only mode of action I had under the circumstances was to cancel the licence of the house.

In the interest of humanity, too, it might be enacted that any brothel keeper should be liable to a fine for having on his or her premises any child under fifteen years of age.

*NOTE by Colonial Secretary:The very first Ordinance passed in this Colony (by Sir H. POTTINGER) was Slavery. It was disallowed as superfluous, Slavery being already forbidden, and slave-dealing indictable by law.

Surely the Bill of Sale here would have been sufficicut evidence.

against

W. T. MERCER.