and regulations framed in virtue of Section 3 of Ordinance 7 of 1862, and in their judgment they
vary.
"The English book could not itself,
"however, have been received in evidence,
"as the Rules,
"therein
• and Regulations contained
are not such Rules and
"Regulations as one would expect to be framed under the Ordinance. They do not in themselves purport to be so framed.
"They do not purport to be framed by the Captain Superintendent of Police, and
"they do not purport to have been approved by the Governor."
It is therefore not entirely correct to say the prosecution omitted to prove that the regulations in question had been approved by the Governor, although this had been duly done.
The Police should not have furnished the prosecution with what was stated to be the rules in question when they were not really so.
2nd March 1887.
(Signed) Edw J. Ackroyd,
Atty General
DRAFT.
No. 123
The original
MINUTE.
Mr. Lucas 14.
Mr. De Robeck
Mr. Wingfield.
Mr. Bramston.
X Mr. Meade.
Sir R. Herbert.
Lord Onslow.
14
Sir H. T. Holland.
July
199 Hongkong
13141
And
15-
450
13 July 87
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch No. 499 of the 27th of May 1887, enclosing the annual report of the Captain Superintendent of Police for 1885.
As regards the difficulty which arose as to its publication in the Colony, I would point out that the ordinary course to follow in cases when it is considered inadvisable to publish the whole report furnished by the head of a department, is to expunge such passages as are
"Const-