686938-1879-Certificates-of-Policemen-on-their-retirement- — Page 25

THE HONGKONG GOVERNMENT GAZETTE, 17TM SEPTEMBER, 1879. 559

Minute by His Excellency the Governor.

I do not quite understand the last paragraph in the Captain Superintendent's letter of the 1st of May, 1879. Ask him to explain what he means by saying "I enclose his (JOHN FREEMAN'S) character- "roll, which would count for ten years' service as very good.”

J. POPE HENNESSY.

14th May, 1879.

Report by the Captain Superintendent of Police.

I have the honour to report that the amplified meaning of the paragraph referred to is to this effect :--

JOHN FREEMAN has served ten years and reference to his character-roll shows that during that period of service he has only been fined on three occasions, and that on none of those occasions did the fine amount to $10 (which sum denotes a "serious offence"). Therefore, as the number of offences are few when the number of years he has served are considered, his character on his discharge certificate would be marked "very good."

W. M. DEANE.

Captain Superintendent of Police.

Minute by His Excellency the Governor.

1. In this case it rests with me to decide whether P.C. JOIN FREEMAN, who was enlisted in our Police Force ten years ago in Hongkong, and who is now retiring on pension, should receive the three months' pay (as a sort of gratuity in addition to the pension) amounting to $120, being the sum he can receive under section 3 of Ordinance 8 of 1869, or whether the greater favour of giving him $250 (payable to Constables enlisted in the United Kingdom) should be allowed to him.

2. In bringing this question before me, the Captain Superintendent adds, that JoHN FREEMAN'S character-roll counts for ten years' service as very good."

3. But on looking through the character-roll I find eight offences recorded, some no doubt not very serious, but one so grave that it is impossible for me to overlook it. It is an offence described in the character-roll as "gross neglect of duty," and on calling for the details, the Captain Superintendent states that it was a case in which P.C. FREEMAN, being in charge of a Police Station, was bound to have sent the Indian Constables on duty at 10 P.M., but that at midnight, the Inspector of the district having occasion to arrest a man, found no Constables on night duty, and on proceeding to the Police Station he found FREEMAN and the Indians (who ought to have been on duty) in their beds.

4. This incident occurred in the middle of the year 1877, and though FREEMAN was then fined $6, he had again to be fined ($5) in the following month for being " asleep on duty."

5. Though it appears to have been the practice for the Captain Superintendent to record the character-roll of a Constable of the Hongkong Police as "very good" in spite of such incidents, unless the offence were more numerous, or the fines in each case amounted to $10, I cannot approve of it.

6. I have long been of opinion, that upon the thorough performance of the night duties of the Police Force, we have mainly to depend for the prevention of crime in this Colony. I see no reason for doubting the accuracy of the view taken by the recent Committee of the Legislative Council presided over by the late Mr. MAY, that this Colony has been insufficiently policed at night time, and that this has had probably more to do with the increase in some class of offences than any other cause.

7. But if I were now to ratify the Captain Superintendent's certificate that P.C. FREEMAN'S conduct has been "very good" and to give him accordingly the suggested bonus of $250, I should not be encouraging that thorough performance of the night duties of the Force that I consider to be of such vital importance.

8. The Captain Superintendent will, therefore, be good enough to revise the discharge certificate in this case, substituting a lower mark of conduct for the phrase "very good," and he will also see that FREEMAN is paid the lower bonus of $120, instead of $250.