Land permanently exempted from some of the restrictions framed for a different class of vessels & service.
2 of the suggested exemptions could be strictly limited to the vessels of the two companies above named; it might perhaps not be unsafe to allow it. Such a limitation would, however, be impracticable. To define sufficiently precise to confine the exemption to the highest class of Mail Steamers and to exclude all others could be inserted in an Act of Parliament, and the result would be that in a short time all vessels carrying mails would claim and obtain the exemption. For instance, in Mr. Thomsett's memorandum enclosed in the Governor's despatch of 23rd May, it is stated that "the last Pacific Mail Steamer leaving Hong Kong had over 1200 Chinese on board." This was, I presume, an American vessel; and if the Peninsular & Oriental and Messageries Maritimes vessels carrying mails are exempted, it would be impossible to refuse exemption to American vessels carrying the mails also.
3. When the Imperial Acts of 1852 and 1833 were passed, provisions were inserted to exempt Mail Steamers from their operation. At that time the number of Mail Steamers was small, and generally speaking...
Page 533
(The original text is kept as much as possible, with minor corrections for spelling and spacing issues. The formatting is done using HTML as per the instructions.)
becomesLand permanently exempted from some of the restrictions framed for a different class of vessels & service.
2 of the suggested exemptions could be strictly limited to the vessels of the two companies above named; it might perhaps not be unsafe to allow it. Such a limitation would, however, be impracticable. To define sufficiently precise to confine the exemption to the highest class of Mail Steamers and to exclude all others could be inserted in an Act of Parliament, and the result would be that in a short time all vessels carrying mails would claim and obtain the exemption. For instance, in Mr. Thomsett's memorandum enclosed in the Governor's despatch of 23rd May, it is stated that "the last Pacific Mail Steamer leaving Hong Kong had over 1200 Chinese on board." This was, I presume, an American vessel; and if the Peninsular & Oriental and Messageries Maritimes vessels carrying mails are exempted, it would be impossible to refuse exemption to American vessels carrying the mails also.
3. When the Imperial Acts of 1852 and 1833 were passed, provisions were inserted to exempt Mail Steamers from their operation. At that time the number of Mail Steamers was small, and generally speaking...
Page 533
Here is the rewritten response:Land permanently exempted from some of the restrictions framed for a different class of vessels & service.
2 of the suggested exemptions could be strictly limited to the vessels of the two companies above named; it might perhaps not be unsafe to allow it. Such a limitation would, however, be impracticable. To definition sufficiently precise to confine the exemption to the highest class of Mail Steamers and to exclude all others could be inserted in an Act of Parliament, and the result would be that in short time all vessels carrying mails would claim and obtain the exemption. For instance, in Mr. Thomsett's memorandum Enclosed in the Governor's despatch of 23rd May, it is stated that "the last Pacific Mail Steamer leaving Hong Kong had over 1200 Chinese on board." This was, I presume, an American vessel; and if the Peninsular & Oriental and Messageries Maritimes vessels carrying mails are exempted, it would be impossible to refuse exemption to American vessels carrying the mails also.
3. When the Imperial Acts of 1852 and 1833 were passed, provisions were inserted to exempt Mail Steamers from their operation. At that time the number of Mail Steamers was small, and generally speaking...
Page 533