The Board who more particularly understood the Chinese views and wishes, and such as the colony should be treated differently. The excitement caused amongst both landlords and Chinese tenants, subjects protected against the sacrifice of property contemplated, first because it was unnecessary for the Chinese, and secondly because without compensation to landlords, rents must be impaired to the poor Chinese tenants.
I understand that W. March sent the Bill, the Sanitary Board's report, and D. Hokien's protest to the Secretary of State for instructions on the question of compensation, and that four Excellency also wrote on the same subject.
In reply to these despatches, it is believed that the Secretary of State telegraphed that compensation would not be allowed in England, and that it was not apparent why when the Bill was before Council in May it led to a deputation to the Governor, and a memorial asking that the clauses in reference to the 10 feet pet spacer should be left out, they pressed most strongly that it would be unjust.
On the 17th of June, the Sanitary Board in reply to the Colonial Secretary again wrote (see para. 17.) "we are sure that in England law and equity are not set aside and sacrificed for the public good without due indemnity for individual interests and actual losses suffered". "I believe it is the opinion of Your Excellency and other members of the Government...