The marked passage is to be examined. I intend to make quite clear that the two preceding subsections dealing with the definition seem to me merely to be connected to the terms of the Draft reference.
Are we to take this as being in the terms of the Draft reference? If so, send it. If not, the B.Ji. had better decide what to do with it.
I fail to see what Magna Charta or the Dialogos de Scacario has to do with the Inlign perditio.
If "passengers" in the Chinese Passenger Act 1855 refers to all kinds of passengers and not merely emigrants, I do not think it can be gathered from the Law Officers' opinion that the Hong Kong Legislature can by regulation or otherwise alter the number of passengers which go to make up a Chinese passenger ship. But I think there is something to be said for the view that if a Chinese passenger within the meaning of the Imperial Act was really intended to mean a Chinese emigrant as distinct from first or second-class passengers, then, although this does not appear to have been the view of the legislative authority in Hong Kong, it would be possible to amend the Ordinance so as to exclude from the computation of twenty passengers, first and second-class passengers natives of China.
It will be noted, for what it is worth, that the Ordinance of 1889 repeats the definition in the Imperial Act of a Chinese passenger ship and purports to exercise, by Section 15(3), the right of deciding whether first and second-class passengers shall be included in the twenty passengers which would go to make it a passenger ship. On this view, it might be contended that the Imperial Government had allowed the definition of the number to be carried by a Chinese passenger ship to come under the Colony's legislation and not under the Imperial legislation. It may be deemed advisable to put this before the Law Officers again.
A copy of the Law Officers' opinion should be sent officially to the Colonial Office.
R.3.C. 8/12/6.
Page 3224
Page 3225
450
1679