COP
C.O.
17813
Rec
Rce 19 MAY 06
Hongkong,
10th. November,
1905.
501
Dear Sir Matthew Nathan,
With regard to our interview on the 7th.
instant concerning the new Summary Offences Amendment Ordinance,
I beg to put into writing, as you suggested, a note of what I
said.
When the Bill was published in the Gazette on
the 8th. September, 1905, my colleagues, the other Unofficial
Members of the Legislative Council, and I cordially approved of
the purpose of the Bill as stated in its "objects and reasons",
namely to abate the nuisance caused by solicitation. We therefore
unanimously supported the measure at the first reading.
At the second reading on the 14th. September,
1905, the Attorney-General introduced as an amendment a defining
section which contained no apparent indication of a change in the
purpose of the Bill, and which neither my colleagues nor I suppos-
-ed was meant to effect any such change. We therefore again
unanimously supported the measure. But if we had been aware that
the purpose of the Amending Section, instead of being to abate
the nuisance caused by solicitation, was to interfere with exist-
-ing rights of property in private streets, we should have strong-
-ly opposed it. I would point out, as I did at greater length in
our interview, that the Government has received premia and is now
receiving rent for these private streets, and that houses therein
have hitherto commanded specially high rents because of the ad-
-vantage enjoyed by the tenants in the use of the open space,
and even if the important alteration in the law made by the
amending