87
Enactments to be repeated by this Draft Ordinance
has not, so far as I can ascertain, come in force
Lo Tamarom
in his despatch Nr 57 of 18 May 1877 (the Draft of which has here been lost but a copy herewith is sent from the former) directed certain amendments to be made in it - this does not appear to have been attended to but as the code contained a suspending clause and has never been confirmed it is not law.
Had instructions been given to print it and the Govt should have taken steps to carry it into effect.
I presume that Mr O'Malley has ascertained that the list of Enactments in the Schedule contains all those by which hanging is authorized and all those by which flogging is authorized (as a sentence or part of a sentence) for offences for which it may not be inflicted in England.
I doubt whether piracy (act 31 of 1865) and Detaining persons with intent to sell them or Detaining a person (act 3 & 7 of 1865) might advantageously continue to be punishable with flogging.
I refer to the reference to $43 Vict.
I think it not parent that the Laws in force here should repeal the words "publicly or" done here in this act 12 of 1865.
I question the necessity or expediency of applying a different rule in Hong Kong from that established in England? The theory that Chinese are liable to lung disease is not supported by evidence.
Learn to be an appropriate specialist in such matters.
On the back has I When her pretty will implored. but perhaps there it was intended to decide the point in favour of uniformity.
I do not read the minutes as finally settling this point.
Subject to the above observations I do not see any objection to the Draft Ordinance.
It does not however as I anticipated that it would deal with punishments for prison offences.
Consequently alteration of the Prison Ordinance 17657 is necessary.
The word "flogging" does not occur in the defective Statutes, and it should not be introduced into this Ordinance (the object is to heighten its colour; but may Regain the use of the word as before).
I fear that technically it is right to repeal ord. 8/70 it is low, though its operation is suspended: but this repeal is not carrying out the Instructions of 18 May 77 - to not be told to take this order out of the Schedule as directed in that dispatch? (See 14.5/77)
Should it not also be wise to strike out the Sensational preamble altogether; a clause "Whereas it is expedient to modify the Penal laws of the Colony".
The preamble as it stands does impliedly omit the laws, and cannot explain the circumstances which had to their introduction, and it unnecessarily throws blame upon the Colony.
In conversation with Mr. Kingfield as to cl.3, the theory that the cat furriers lung disease in a Chinaman rests on Dr. Aris statement: but it was ridiculed by The Indian Medical Journal, drafton 14/07/77 from 22 - and the Medical Commission appointed to consider the question reported against Dyson, which the government find employers cause severe injury to the persons.
Page 88
87
Enactments to hrepeated by this Dust Adinance
has not to for as I can excertain wor
Lo Tamarom
come in force
in his despatch Nr 57 7 18 May 1877 (the Draft of have
which has here lost but a copy her hea
the frommer and is herewith) stained from
herewith) directed
Certani amendments to be made in it - this dow not appear to have hen attended to but as the core contained
a suspending clance and has never hun confirmed it
is net law -
Had windy всеха ий дий
This should I printed at and the fort should tität repeat backed why he has not taken steps
L
carry
Lord farmourn; instructions
I presume that, the list o
Mr O'Malley has ascertained that
the list of Enactments in the Schedule
Kan hu
Contradiction
I aque
K.
Lord Kimbr wistructions.
pointe aut
EN
contains all there by which handing is autherized and Ardui all there by which pepping is authored (as a sentence
or part of a sentence) for offences for wheel it may net
I inflicted in England.
I doult whether piracy (ades 171865) and Detaining persons with for the purpose of selling them or Ntaining a reason (wott 3
(37 1565) might advantage continue 5th punishable with lyflogging
net with
Jagre
0437
adu
31 i ne
1515 Pull intended.
I el. 2. the refrence to $43
appears the enmems
I aque
I stick it
hertel
to annex)
I thin
not the parent They Laws in
This clause should also repeal the words "publicly or" done her in this in ade 12
1865
I question the mecefity or expediency of Why should a different rule
clann 3
pom that established in
apply hylaced
in Hong Kong ? the theory
of Hoyed
that Chinese are hot to lung disease
-4
Learn to
an
apprope peciest
in such
on the back has I When her pretty will implored. but perhaps there it was intended to decide the point
in favour of hiftormness cries
do not read the minutes as
9807. theigh I
finally settling & so.
Subject to the above. obervations I do not see
any dution to the Draft, ordinence
It does not hurwer as I catiriputed that it would deal with punishments for prison offences -
>
evlony
k
4.38.8 4.4577
Consequently
(2435)
au
alteration of the Proton 17657 is
resepary
Eu
30.11
The
wore "flegging" dous ent occur in the defective Statutes, a it should not be introshead into this online
br
ane (the object is to heighten it's colour; but may Regain the nose othe word as
bax draping)-
bring
I fear that
+ tehnically it is right to repeat ord. 8970 it is low, though it's operation is dus funded: but this refial is not carrying out and the Instructions of 18 May 77- to not be told to take this order out of the Schedule a close. with it as directed in that disp? (Jee 14.54th /77
Brands
Should
/77)
house it not also be weee to strike and the Sensational Sneeuble altogether; a insect "Whereas it is expedient
modify the Jenal lows ofthe Coling)
The preambl.
the authenti
as it stands des impliedly omilimas the laws, han of camrt explain the circumstances which had to their
o at the time sate fi suntours. off- introduction, a it unnerssarily throws list upon The Colony-
Ingen with Mr. Kingfield as to cl.3_ the theory that the cat furdners lung disease in a Chinaman resto on Dr. Aris statiment : but it was ridiculed by The Indian Medrine Brand, drafton 14107/77 from 22 - and the Medical Commissions apponitul to conside The question exportere gained Dikyns. which the gutten find employers cansue severe injury to the pains
mens,
'ec.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.