CO129-059 - Sir Bowring - 1856 [11-12] — Page 310

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

M. I

• Melch. (acting Chief Magistrate) who issued the Circular, disapproved the Circular,

inasmuch as Mr. Austin's letter was evidently written with intent to relieve M. Mitchell of the responsibility he incurred in inviting the Magistrate to attend and outvote him, and because the plain result of the Circular would be the illegal dismissal of Cases under the Building Regulations 1887, 1855.

Subsequently to the expression of my disapproval, I found it necessary to cause a circular letter to be written to the Justices (dated 14 November) between the Est. Sec. & Mr. Mit... A: A. 304

which was acknowledged by all save Mr. Liele and Mr. Gray. Mr. Searth was absent in Canton. I directed the Colonial Secretary to call for explanation from Mr. Liele and Gray separately, & most unsatisfactory replies were received from Mr. Liele, dated 19 & 24 November respectively. Mr. Gray refused even acknowledgement of the Colonial Secretary's letter.

It appears that on the 20th November the correspondence with Mr. Mitchell referred to above was irregularly shown to the Justices by the Chief Magistrate, and hence issued-

Edit History

2026-05-18 07:13:27 · NVIDIA / meta/llama-4-maverick-17b-128e-instruct

Live

View comparison

AI Proofread

M. I • Melch. (acting Chief Magistrate) who issued the Circular, disapproved the Circular, inasmuch as Mr. Austin's letter was evidently written with intent to relieve M. Mitchell of the responsibility he incurred in inviting the Magistrate to attend and outvote him, and because the plain result of the Circular would be the illegal dismissal of Cases under the Building Regulations 1887, 1855. Subsequently to the expression of my disapproval, I found it necessary to cause a circular letter to be written to the Justices (dated 14 November) between the Est. Sec. & Mr. Mit... A: A. 304 which was acknowledged by all save Mr. Liele and Mr. Gray. Mr. Searth was absent in Canton. I directed the Colonial Secretary to call for explanation from Mr. Liele and Gray separately, & most unsatisfactory replies were received from Mr. Liele, dated 19 & 24 November respectively. Mr. Gray refused even acknowledgement of the Colonial Secretary's letter. It appears that on the 20th November the correspondence with Mr. Mitchell referred to above was irregularly shown to the Justices by the Chief Magistrate, and hence issued-

Baseline (Original)

M. I • Melch. (aching Cillagestrate chief Magistrate who issued iċ- I dicapproved the Circular, Anasmuch as Aur auterbus' letter was was critently written with intent to relieve M. Mitchell of the responsibility he incunid in inviting the Magistrate: to attend and outvote him, and because the plain result of the ¡Cirenian would be the illegal demissal of Cases under the Building Romance 1887 1855. Tubsequently to the expression of my disapproval, I found it necessary to cause a circular letter to be written to the Justices (dated 54 November) between th Est. Sec La Mi Mit A: A. 304 which was acknowledged by all save Mr. Lielie and Mr Gray Mr Searth was absent in Canton. I directed the Colonial Lerty. to call for explanation from Man's Lestic and baay separately, & mat unsatisfreton replies wvere received from Me Lielu, rated 1/4 and 24 November respectively. Me baay refund even acknowlidquee of the Colonial Secretary's letter. that on the 20th & secus November the corespondenec with Mo Mitchili referred above was to ineqularly shown to the Justices by the Chief Magistrate, and hence issued-

2026-05-18 07:13:27 · Baseline

View content

M. I

• Melch. (aching Cillagestrate

chief Magistrate who issued iċ- I dicapproved the Circular,

Anasmuch as Aur auterbus'

letter was

was critently written with intent to relieve M. Mitchell of the responsibility he incunid in inviting the Magistrate: to attend and outvote him, and because the plain result of the ¡Cirenian would be the illegal demissal of Cases under the Building Romance 1887 1855.

Tubsequently to the

expression of my disapproval, I found it necessary to cause a

circular letter to be written to

the Justices (dated 54 November)

between th Est. Sec La Mi Mit A: A.

304

which was acknowledged by all save Mr. Lielie and Mr Gray Mr Searth was absent in Canton. I directed the Colonial Lerty. to call for explanation from Man's Lestic and baay separately, & mat unsatisfreton replies

wvere

received from Me Lielu, rated 1/4 and 24 November respectively. Me baay refund

even acknowlidquee

of the Colonial Secretary's letter. that on the 20th

secus

November the corespondenec

with Mo Mitchili referred

above was

ineqularly shown to

the Justices by the Chief

Magistrate, and hence issued-

Comments

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

No comments yet.

Private Research Note

Private notes are available after approval.