|
Posted by United Press International on January 23, 2008, 7:45 pm
Please log in for more thread options
's first minute on the subject, dated 20th October, 1866,
in which he wrote he was 'anxious early to introduce to the Council an
amended Brothel Ordinance, conferring _necessarily_ almost despotic
powers on the Registrar General." ... Be it said to the honor of
Attorney General (now Sir Julian) Pauncefote, that in the face of this
he urges the most weighty objections to the policy of "subjecting
persons to fine and imprisonment without the safeguards which surround
the administration of justice in a public and open court." But these
objections were not allowed to prevail.
It appears that some hesitation was felt on the part of the home
authorities in giving approval to the new ordinance. It may have been
the warning given by Attorney General Pauncefote, it may have been
something else. Whatever it was, the Commission informs us: "The
Ordinance 10 of 1867 received its final sanction when the conclusion
arrived at by the Colonial Government was before the home authorities,
showing that in the event of the ordinance becoming law, _revenue
would be derived_ from the tainted source of prostitution among the
Chinese." (The italics are the authors').
Ordinance 10, 1867 now came into operation, with the following
additional powers in the hands of the "Protector" of Chinese, the
Registrar General:
1st, Not only were keepers of unregistered houses to be fined or
sent to prison, but the women--"held in practical slavery for the
purposes of prostitution"--when found in unregistered houses were
also subject to fine and imprisonment.
2nd, The Registrar-General, otherwise the "Protector" of Chinese,
could break into any house suspected of being a brothel, and
arrest the keeper thereof without warrant. And he could authorize
his underlings to do the same.
3rd, The Registrar General could exercise both judi
| 
XML site map