brought in solely on the representations made to the then Government by and for the benefit of the Chinese Insurance Company Limited and no one suggested a single circumstance calling for the further legislation intended by the rejected Bill; but as the shares in that company were of the value of $5,000 each, Ordinance No. 4 of 1876 was passed to enable the company to reduce its shares to $1,500 each, a concession such as is often granted to private companies at home. For this reasonable object I voted, although the three non-members entered protests.
6. On the second reading of the withdrawn Bill being moved on the 16th Instant without a single reason adduced, I objected to it as being an unprecedented bringing for reargument of a measure deliberately rejected and substantially for the reasons which I had stated on voting against the former Bill, and concurred in by all.
2. After the second reading had been commented on and opposed by myself and by all the three Commercial Members of the Council at some length, I was extremely surprised to hear from His Excellency the Governor that his measure had been before the Secretary of State, and
LTAIL 7 | 76–11 & S 18454