It will be convenient to treat the whole subject together.
Tonjit telegram for consi Gud. 2tep. See further munits attacker hereto falso 18604 ninter on X *19597 & 17712 Eu91640/90 17273 726
I have marked the passages in this Ordinance where it differs from & printed at pp.329 of the draft sent out from this Office, 4.6.242.1890 and also the passages in the Regulations which differ from the Straits Regu
I was told to Xat pp. 60-2 water that the Atting for ZH. 1.59-1889 follow generally. *see p.42 o of 4.1.242-1890 st in St s.k *
(1) In the preamble the words "to repeal the law in force for compulsory medical exame" are omitted, because that effected by Ord. 19 of 1889, and says that az 3 of this Ord. while repealing Ord 19 of 1889 distinct s "Such repeal shall not revive. Ord. repealed by, Oct. 19 of 1889 Min respect 0.3 and the Schedule A differs from the phraseology of draft, beat the affect is the same.
These changes then need not be noticed? (2) 1.2 first par. and definition of "owner of a brothel" are improvement of our draft.
(3) In s. 5 the word "unmarried" is I think wrongly inserted. The clause prozesse, to be follow 8.2 of 48,49 Vic. c.69 (Criminal Law Amendment act 1885) but the ward "girl" in restrictios ~ Act is quite different. Englishe "arried" which 2 ein. ? Ask why word "unmarried" was not in the Ord. of 1809 inserted sent art by L Draft
Page information is not present in the original text, if "Page XX" is detected in your original scan, please provide them so I can assist you further.