CO129-059 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [11-12] — Page 171

CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案 All AI Reviewed

with any move ^ ques obseration ( I wait the further developement of this hire, before troubling it, beyond taking leave with your

7. 2-2 upon respect to direct

I give the utmost Moral attention to the following points in the history of this measure recently clicited, by the Public discussion which it has provoked in the Colony.

It now appears that this Ordinance, emanating from a closed Council Chamber, was a forgery - and its penalties operative for three days before it was even promulgated. It passed the Legislative Council on the 16th of April, but was not gazetted as law until the 19th. It first appeared in draft in the Government Gazette of 29th March - disappeared from the time intervening Gazettes of 5th and 12th April, and for anything the Community could positively know to the contrary was withdrawn altogether, when it suddenly made its appearance as law on the 19th of April - and as a retrospective law.

His Excellency is surprised that it elicited no animadversion, to call its "discussion" into question, during what he is pleased to term its "experimental" period.

168 By Metropolitan Building Act 1855 upon which this experimental Ordinance purports to have been modelled, and an Act of the Indian Legislature, No 14 of 1856 - framed only five months later and expressly adjusted to the circumstances of an infant population, are dated respectively four months and seventeen days after their promulgation - and after that interval both these Acts will be found expressly to exclude all Buildings that had advanced above the level of their foundation from within even the compass of their operation, much less being held "liable to their penalties."

Is it greater wisdom to follow precedents with the arm of our law, or to contract these wise local Executive measures under one head for expat facts penaly, under another; and making

Edit History

2026-05-18 06:33:19 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct
Live
View comparison
AI Proofread
with any move ^ ques obseration ( I wait the further developement of this hire, before troubling it, beyond taking leave with your 7. 2-2 upon respect to direct I give the utmost Moral attention to the following points in the history of this measure recently clicited, by the Public discussion which it has provoked in the Colony. It now appears that this Ordinance, emanating from a closed Council Chamber, was a forgery - and its penalties operative for three days before it was even promulgated. It passed the Legislative Council on the 16th of April, but was not gazetted as law until the 19th. It first appeared in draft in the Government Gazette of 29th March - disappeared from the time intervening Gazettes of 5th and 12th April, and for anything the Community could positively know to the contrary was withdrawn altogether, when it suddenly made its appearance as law on the 19th of April - and as a retrospective law. His Excellency is surprised that it elicited no animadversion, to call its "discussion" into question, during what he is pleased to term its "experimental" period. 168 By Metropolitan Building Act 1855 upon which this experimental Ordinance purports to have been modelled, and an Act of the Indian Legislature, No 14 of 1856 - framed only five months later and expressly adjusted to the circumstances of an infant population, are dated respectively four months and seventeen days after their promulgation - and after that interval both these Acts will be found expressly to exclude all Buildings that had advanced above the level of their foundation from within even the compass of their operation, much less being held "liable to their penalties." Is it greater wisdom to follow precedents with the arm of our law, or to contract these wise local Executive measures under one head for expat facts penaly, under another; and making
Baseline (Original)
on with any move ^ ques obseration ( _ I wait the further developement of this hire, before troubling it, beyond laking leave with f your 7. 2-2 upon respect to direct еме I the utmost Moral attention to the following points in the history of this meanes recently clicited, by the Public discussion which it the provoked in the Cology inportfarte lager has It now appears that thi emanating from a closed Council Chamber, was a in in forge - and it's penalties operativ for three days before it was even promulgated. It passed the legislative Council on the 16th of April, but was not gogetted as law until the # _ It first appeared in draft in the Govern. - ment Gazette of 29th March - Lisappeared from the time intervening Gazelles of 5+ and 12th frie and for anythinly the Community could positi kang to the combay combrary way withdrawn altogether, when it suddenly made it appearance as lon the 19th of April- and y blicity ratrospective lavy. -on wat suck being the extent of pure blacky given to it a 8. This Excellency is surprized that it alallenged no anima. to call its "discussion". which this ion during what he is placed 168 By Matropolitan dyilling Aut 1855 upon проти experimental Ordinance preferred to have been modelled, and an Aot of the Indian Legislature. No 14 of 1856 - framed only free months lator and expressly adjusted to the circumstances of an triatis population, are dated respectivaly four months and seventeen days after their promal- -gation - and after that interval both thee Acts will be found expressly to excluda all Buildings that had advanced above the lovel of theiz frungation from within even Courser all of their operation much les being held "liable to their penalting." Is it greatest it moremon precedents with the arms wat of our saking out Buildings in progress in law, Fir to contract these wise four local Executive under one Ens for expat facts penally, wider another; affe und making
2026-05-18 06:33:19 · Baseline
View content

on

with

any

move

^

ques obseration

( _ I wait the further developement of this

hire, before troubling

it, beyond laking leave with

f your

7.

2-2

upon

respect to direct

еме

I the utmost Moral attention to the following points in the history of this meanes recently clicited, by the Public discussion which it the provoked in the Cology inportfarte lager

has

It now

appears

that thi

emanating from a closed Council Chamber,

was a

in

in forge

-

and it's penalties operativ for

three days before it was even

promulgated. It passed the legislative Council on the 16th of April, but was not gogetted as law until the # _ It first appeared in draft in the Govern. - ment Gazette of 29th March - Lisappeared from the time intervening Gazelles of 5+ and 12th frie and for anythinly the Community could positi kang to the combay

combrary way withdrawn altogether, when it suddenly made it appearance as lon the 19th of April- and y

blicity

ratrospective lavy.

-on

wat

suck being the extent of pure blacky given to it a

8.

This Excellency is surprized that it alallenged

no

anima.

to call its "discussion".

which this

ion

during what he is placed

168

By Matropolitan dyilling Aut

1855 upon

проти experimental Ordinance preferred to have been modelled, and an Aot of the Indian

Legislature. No 14 of 1856 - framed only free months lator and expressly adjusted to the circumstances of an triatis population, are dated respectivaly four months and seventeen days after their promal- -gation - and

after that interval both thee Acts will be found expressly to excluda all Buildings that had advanced above the lovel of theiz frungation

from

within

even

Courser

all

of their operation much les being held "liable to their penalting."

Is it greatest

it moremon precedents with the arms wat of our

saking out Buildings in progress

in

law,

Fir to contract these wise

four

local Executive

under

one

Ens for expat facts penally, wider another; affe

und

making

Comments

Approved members can add comments, bookmarks, and private notes.

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.