296
THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 4TH JUNE, 1879.
Well, then they say:-
We are of opinion, that the punishment of flogging on the back with the "regulation cat," without any knots, be con- tinued; care being taken by means of a thick canvas collar that the neck is not injured and that the loins be protected in a similar way so that by these means the blows should fall on the muscles covering the shoulder blades and the intermedia spinal space. That flogging on the back be not inflicted on any person under eighteen years of age. That flogging on the breech with six tails of the cat be the punishment of offenders from the age of thirteen to eighteen, and that the "birch be used for any offenders of more tender years.
Now, I have had to consider whether I would introduce the important changes recommended by the Committee, whether I would direct the canvas protection that they say should be used to be employed in future, and whether the cat should be used without knots as they say. If I should order this, one effect would be that it would reflect very seriously on every sentence of flogging that had been carried out before. If all this protection is necessary, and if the knots are to be taken off the cat, what about all the floggings that took place before?
The Colonial Treasurer. The canvas covering was used before, your Excellency, by myself.
HIS EXCELLENCY.—No doubt my Honourable friend may have used it, but it was not used by others. Mr. TONNOCHY has introduced many reforms and improvements into the prison, but without doubt there have been men flogged without these coverings and with the knots to which the Committee re- ferred. Therefore, if I were to issue an order it would be so far a reflection on what had been done before. But that is not the reason why I decline to issue that order. I certainly could not continue in use the rattan they speak of. On seeing their report Dr. AYRES at once drew my attention to it, pointing out that a cane of shorter dimensions and less severity should be used. As the body of laws in this Colony point to flogging with the rattan, and as we know what the laws of China point to, we had better retain that punishment and not inflict a punishment which is inconsistent with our Ordinances and with the opinions of their own medical men, because there is not a single Chinese doctor who is not of opinion it is dangerous to flog on the back. Every one knows the physical constitution of the Chinese differs from our own, just as the physical constitution of the Indian does, and every one is aware that in India no one is flogged on the back. I have laid these papers before you and entered into these de- tails because it is important to remove very serious misapprehensions which have prevailed in the first instance as to my action with regard to the laws of the Colony. The Attorney General is present and he will bear me out, I think, when I say I would not be acting properly if I permitted any Superintendent of the prison to have any prisoner flogged with the cat for a prison offence, or if I allowed any person to be flogged with the cat under sentence from a Magistrate. At once we dispose of by far the largest number of floggins. His Excellency went on to refer to the small number of cases from the Supreme Court and said that of five men sentenced by the Chief Justice three were not flogged, but the Attorney General advised His Excellency that he had not power to alter the sentence so as to inflict the flogging with a rattan instead of the cat as ordered.
The Chief Justice explained that the questions which arose was as to whether the flogging was to be public or private. The Governor had the power to regulate the instrument. He thought he was bound by precedent to order the flogging to be public, but while he was at home Mr. SNOWDEN sentenced men to be flogged in private, and he gave way, Mr. SNOWDEN having, as it were, overruled him.
His Excellency referred further to the grounds of his action with regard to the rattan, and with reference to a remark which had been made on Dr. AYRES, to the effect that it was
only when His Excellency came that he made the discovery about the evils of flogging on the back, said it was due to that gentleman to state that the imputation was unfounded. Dr. AYRES having been asked by the Colonial Office to explain why he had not pointed out the evils of flogging on the back before, replied that he had called attention to it on two previous occasions. The limited question as to the Supreme Court sentences was now under the consideration of the Secretary of State, but his own recommend- ation certainly was that the rattan should be used as in India. The Council was now aware of all that had passed on the subject, and he left the question in their hands.
DEPORTATION.
His Excellency said that before sitting down he would call their attention to another question in connection with the administration of justice, upon which a wonderful misapprehension had prevailed. They were aware Mr. Lowcock gave notice of motion on the 21st December, 1878, for the corres- pondence between the Governor, the Magistrates, and the Police department about deportation. That motion he agreed to and he now laid upon the table all the correspondence. In doing so he would mention that on the 24th of last month Mr. Lowcock wrote to the Colonial Secretary saying:-
Mr. Lowcock to Colonial Secretary.
Hongkong, 24th April, 1879. SIR,-Being about to leave the Colony for some months, I have respectfully to request you to inform me whether the correspondence I had the honour to move for at the Legislative Council on 21st December last, and which His Excellency the Governor then expressed his willingness to have placed on the table, has been prepared yet, as I am most anxious to have an opportunity of seeing it before my departure. For full particulars of the correspondence asked for, I would beg reference to the Government Gazette of 22nd January, 1879,-l am, &c.
HENRY LOWCOCK.
(Signed,)
The Honourable W. H. MARSH,
Colonial Secretary,
$c..
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.