[ { "id": 230937, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-034 - Sir Bonham - 1850 [9-12]", "page_number": 358, "title": "CO129-034 - Sir Bonham - 1850 [9-12]", "content_text": "Return No. 1\n\nThe overland arrivals at Hongkong from California and the West Coast of North and South America.\n\n8 June 1850\n\n \n Flag\n Rig\n Names\n Tons\n \n \n British\n Ship\n Whitby\n 374\n \n \n British\n Bark\n Black Dog\n 154\n \n \n Danish\n Bark\n Frederick Wilhelm\n 430\n \n \n British\n Ship\n Marie\n 230\n \n \n British\n Brig\n \n 250\n \n \n American\n Ship\n \n 204\n \n \n British\n Ship\n \n 763\n \n \n British\n Bark\n \n 338\n \n \n Danish\n Ship\n \n 233\n \n \n British\n Ship\n \n 739\n \n \n British\n Bark\n \n 580\n \n \n American\n Ship\n \n 351\n \n\nJanuary\n\n \n 10\n Whitby\n \n \n 11\n Black Dog\n \n \n 18\n Frederick Wilhelm\n \n \n 23\n Marie\n \n\nOther arrivals\n\n \n Date\n Name\n \n \n 4\n Aucklande\n \n \n 10\n Warlock\n \n \n \n Lady Montague\n \n \n 16\n Wodan\n \n \n 4\n Adventure\n \n \n 5\n Lora Hunt\n \n \n 7\n Cornwall\n \n \n 13\n Anonyma\n \n \n 17\n Mala\n \n \n \n of Sulphur\n \n \n \n Mathilde\n \n \n 2\n Balley\n \n \n 6\n Hils\n \n \n 7\n Louisa Baillie\n \n \n 24\n Flavius\n \n \n \n Stockholm\n \n \n 10\n Congress\n \n \n 26\n Hugh Walker\n \n \n \n Charles Willson\n \n \n \n Carl & Hermann\n \n \n 3\n Mary Ann Folliett\n \n \n \n Sellock\n \n \n \n Sir George\n \n \n \n Mirtold\n \n \n 13\n Amazon\n \n \n \n Empressa\n \n \n \n Beilisk\n \n\n \n Flag\n Rig\n Tons\n \n \n British\n Ship\n 567\n \n \n American\n \n 290\n \n \n Swedish\n \n 400\n \n \n American\n \n 375\n \n \n British\n \n 496\n \n \n \n \n 60\n \n \n Hamburgh\n Ship\n 600\n \n \n British\n \n 409\n \n \n \n \n 630\n \n \n British\n \n \n \n \n American\n Brig\n 212\n \n \n British\n Ship\n 380\n \n \n Persian\n Bark\n 135\n \n \n \n \n 10,776\n \n\nTotal Tonnage\n\nVictoria, Hongkong\n\n1st November 1850\n\nB.H. Mitchell\n\nReturn of Vessels leaving Hongkong\n\nList of vessels that sailed into China from the year 1845 to 1849 inclusive\n\nBombay Opium imported\n\nQuantity of Bengal Opium...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-034 - Sir Bonham - 1850 [9-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 262740, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-106 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [8-9]", "page_number": 342, "title": "CO129-106 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [8-9]", "content_text": "## THE DAILY PRESS, TUESDAY AUGUST 1965\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG\n\nthe acting Attorney General formally presented the case.\n\nTUM\n\nWows Arurdwand Cunniline. How critic, wither be rug use, RACANY to 1 Quorem wede ja abia cenu!\n\nby amann othut Jerice, if the tenny, which Re very touch dobe, die He is to colon se wire Bosk\n\n'To Lei.\n\n2713 omdat psico. Spratly or in Waltres special two-storied Godorum Hiland on the Primu close for Monate. 1. Hupy, outer was perf M\n\n21 Best of Meesce Gibb, Livingst, & 60,\n\nAppl\n\nENFORD & O\n\nFor Sale.\n\nEXORATOR. PARLARE.\n\nnines Sail Femmes B. Wii U of James Tuila\n\nHenty, in Hid by Axrorud Skin i. Bile, the inlene hran\n\nAda |\n\nmil\n\nFor Sale.\n\nWALL PAPER, of different patterns\n\nLAMMERT ATZINGON A GE\n\n9 Bengkong, 11th July. D5665.\n\n-- NEW CALINIURIATMOATS,\n\nWhite Male Barille. Ladis Fashivele li Rehner, is at Clack\n\nMuk Estic Kit Glowny, de vente per mišri\n\n1758 +2, 26 July, 1966,\n\n--16, 20\n\nsaid Wong Strong our fa Alyce Builder 150 Tipping, Cure, 15.\n\ngigin ritused on a basin, sive credetion of angi\n\n********* + LIST OF HOLD... the virus of af every hid the Sint ser inte bereof to pruce Lier theic clits TOMIZAM she is by be done the Lot of word and PARINIC LOT NO. 185 siteated esraw the lindore of the portusing by tee Jo-band ef 5 Cibany Sector 1 orang, Print, Fenuraga 120 rive? the whole political pond foaring Lo Mucker and over aantal interest 50,70 feet\n\nFor Paris, noply to 1619 Qllion in the Ren, 2nd find grafite these! paw wing vờ là\n\nhat no Tube 38, at 67-. This was like sivon, em ciment met\n\nCethi pendest bande? io. Prit you! That Watdhere wither art i Let of Gora) REK İTEMİnce will be and par roRRIL Pmmixas |\n\nalimevine\n\nLased the ith day if June, I HÃN,\n\nPI MAZELAND, Crown Poikat, Sprazse t'bars Floșua\n\nponte Exeggut te themid Deerce This the ice an the slatamine published in presidente für mühital leuinney, we pretend that Noch 13ton Berlin B'ame of Monday Topky. The joint Sind of political peristirauzito mmsplate and ¦\n\n2 was a (bimargan, angazed at se merah pez ¦ soarchive sa propustion to the politimil Indagine Death a thin was te-fer hia do we e-the time of the safetcher, at mental. Ens while of the wrath. I was in tay chân, whaết kho minit facturilting these are al maaż, when pha sirrak. ↑ End vermeintó en deck; the roles of aperosive latimay, that the tmekih 13:15 25. The chief officer was no desk at hammaitišs of the ouso require at it the na The Hon. When we strups the tide we zonningthilation of the political influrane of the thin\n\n3. Beat the only offices in of the sumption facty, me tepress var ATE: Watts on the month lard of the & Worked hope that the Ararins ument may CITORAGS may la bed in das fun GRA Tha pink shann? The answer. The gone bey the men da to this malier in mak sut maruple to 98, 12) SITS MODOWY8, under Mesen, Bowrat\n\nsom, the hewing thracht went snerul et following tin bail example vs have int & Cela Oker, Janga Weste\n\nPD-\n\nbesar 9 miles W, of Gutaki lemn, met in Gris the gunichaorac, of pic\n\nhow pur ai the Engelsolent. & alaleak in the lived disquitostira thers Du\n\nWe at 1.55 cm. The ah 1116 removal is tim allenal, spīdenda splinting\n\nwas wete aking at the sloan. Wie we sterke, Kér, Dariu rad Kr. Menjanin ko sāc ammalanandirm\n\nJ 1351\n\nStorage.\n\nBORAGE,\n\npartia moyle to\n\nLANTATION ♣ tìu. Broky, Jely, 13\n\n***** UNINTERAGE AND STORAGE. ****\n\n8 Bndervigovt will modertake to lush Cut j 1.\n\nWhon et druck. That would fart ways of Mr. Langeln, or 018 in the ing of the bar Badets and kar rodine phth the sama te fuit heas vary strutiva, opal Not/lem eius-Tat there be red for thema I that on his plane thart Werk the punish it fairly found elty, their own to see the rai e. The rate was thiet all that night with petuity patentined in fun. But logs in fascines that dunsæirnal clear intervala. We pay the four Fight in 4-4-one pic lead slow, abrose who wreck.\n\nthe Actions overnement vinafoxtet are its tale carme. power god ite plamenes, hitherty na elemolly short throughout this m\n\npilate\n\nBORT. & WALKER $ 20. Prae. 4th and 1863\n\nK. Serið vit of the India Rock, sid: to such us as the iTEAGE, ona be bus in Grantle Unde\n\n1GA\n\nandling Huntington How Long love foto dhe i orchellaity of Quar's Road 11\n\nPombe given the the fut\n\nut\n\nApply\n\nABSINBBOY MATHABLOY A UV.\n\n£ *ing ffomplete. 1716 May, 196\n\nBoad,\n\nAered in a central puition in law's like forme kugejaten ErdalwooA, Apply\n\nty to\n\nGIRS LIVINGSTON 4. US,\n\n981 Bobek, tand there. 18,\n\nEVOKE ASH COAL 2.41 sal!\n\nAndesit tho moha un cha\n\nand CDs Cur Festraller has 1' intues\n\nRon. Liz Houghnan, 2741 they. 15.\n\nand\n\n-- 200 Cod Nagar\n\n20 Bamenda Shil' Better\n\nPlate He\n\nhot napros\n\nEn fiscu\n\nFrant Roses, furs.\n\napply w\n\nNULLER I OLAFSSES.\n\ndegli utes the risin 125 Banglang, 2716 demon. Is\n\nBrant Fair. Apple\n\nAWUTH ARCHEN A. UO.\n\n1973 Hongkong. Via duly, 1968,\n\nPOR SALE\n\nCourt the Boone\n\nFor Sale\n\nFanted,\n\n12 invica of White Wine, ventining\n\nA\n\nPlayer.\n\nBLiu=Äiryihu:r.\n\nHolder\n\nSing Kn\n\nLAY & Cu\n\nJes\n\n1 1997 Strugkong. With fun. 1786,\n\nRoyal Traning of stooty-bound S\n\neating of\n\nblood's Memorite.\n\nSugar Talie Twis\n\nIT W\n\nFrank Polar\n\nMaurice you\n\nPur Surin Hres\n\nHär july's Meilė.\n\nfred Mytaty.\n\nMislandReMAG.\n\nSasha Buy.\n\nH\n\n1. Ma\n\nRuban Mill.\n\nhalshei\n\n16.\n\nStambe\n\nkcjuesin\n\nMand, & Rym of Honma Storrien, Porst, d'incert. Tipuram, Sr. An\n\nYHO HET A to.\n\na mekong eth Mey, G.\n\nREAL ILAVANA USUA 155 dealing art s\n\napezio ya AYANA, w picast uppisis. Peopren of de ret d'Bauge.\n\nHongkong, 3rd October, 1\n\nA BRIDAN Tap uggies and Harney.\n\nIN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG.\n\nASTELLÀTE JURNYCHEN.\n\n1802\n\nHEY, Appelt. z. 1.1-%PNER, Royanini. A EL or Coste\n\nAug 11th 75 Beleinet............. \n\nbridgwa\n\nChristine Matana.\n\nHaish A White's Horaitors and Car\n\nBar\n\nUcpb-towding Carblown and Car-\n\nNow Halas\n\nJahn Kerchwoni's Lagaay,\n\nseals.\n\nwilgen.\n\nand e fal aviv slu.\n\n11\n\n30 barrels Ty DEKAT\n\nSark Pictionary\n\n109 Bargond's Cebuan.\n\n100 pana, Clavul,\n\nBranty.\n\nWap-asi los 11 Tow Shipbone ol Opera,\n\nFor in When\n\nmut, Selz July, căni,\n\nAT THE MAMLS, AND LAVITE GIRA23 NICHOL\n\nGinkley Heart, ita 3\n\nDear Ms Papa'\n\ndie Spri Gazdag, suitabin fur jumtheshaver oriolum in zạn vừw the whole busbuat.\n\napply to\n\n1. NOW HOJEK\n\n:bout to 1$ (), a. Un mm (16h, July 1965.\n\ntrendition of this ufen, had dintainen fumust be the Free Consul at duties and dug Eve-aghaimile of comeings sirength. Mr. Unik Shea pot in the praizng dễ an beroditzes prieve The whose children met set up e claim re they seep-\n\nwing of the Lelie Garth. I hid tifant. I was on lesk when the prank. for obesen mitte). That is as siguture. migaie kurky wann whim pátek.\n\n2nd I hank self at about th Inet vant nf the Soud T\n\nCow be limo hits The Heuring witter benciagani? tem, and gas balwynn Të fal, and a falla. The¦unan háu arvid Hera Togstd in Las parta Seve silat won deck armyding a Getin mhaft of me\n\nnxise\n\nnil sevic1950 kerak.\n\nUeberal\n\nBULAT A DO\n\nFind t\n\nALISHMENT.\n\nstock of fusion fraus nad ellers nat\n\nmi tyllawz si ¡Curta CleNu, 2 in Lance ni falan napki\n\n-N. 2 Marila\n\nCh-2\n\n-N\n\nin the Qera's Hond\n\n| Qubules then, thh thosher, L. HOUKE at Wis corner Polynomialund atau and Alerter Sets SF Orgas sa bounties of as juh\n\nApply\n\nBAY 4 C\n\n778 voksing, sech Juno, Elñ\n\ndis B\n\nA. DE AXEVEDO Slary 6, 1955.\n\nAwacasion can be given all tema.\n\nApplyin\n\nchai, bering Yes fromag\n\nk 100,000 pecula to Uranics Gran, The night who think, met dienend un att was Amasened, a cinne frapriyononang for two gene\n\nwon to hit Lion\n\nLoft for Farm' were her half a male art. Fruta se ne in a heavy within them lepity ficha was 112,000. 34.00 time befel riu sil alteratione ta iñe rovran | fiammdias felines. As for General Yes, we front 1 (9,000 and 10,000 phula vapecity. mens synde lap the risk. The chorus per mat chekje in not bear that be in likely to ba zied. It may\n\nApply arate hueyproendor of the lan to was this the\n\nYADONIU & fo\n\nsedež josed the Falls Hankh be a refellss of big surrender reccted; thazine. 29th Art, 1803.\n\nFAME Marr add-I belang is the firm is only senda military tribanals. Has it will Mat, Mass & Co. Mao nútilin Gaita Punkk's de su fátalu mistake for this Amarjan Garen. pilte had been in the Mieszank for more. Rest aliand is seem to kmak na handcrabin msbeslan i\n\nin druik dievny these\n\nvor. The Captain winloyed the pilot on raiding, ang de Bu\n\nafo de Bic Amil B\n\neranon dating of the gramadore has with its who will have Burping Hut Orneral Ice in 4- name of the few, Sua loka Anet and black cepting thatarem profereal him by General Grant.\n\nThe meter to the Zing wakunellen that run bison Anti den on there\n\ncha vile was concretant to take charge. Captia | Kich of the Government at Washington. Voitib\n\nHard.\n\nROYAL HOTEL.\n\nSMACAO.\n\nat studenty Mutal, mitad\n\nPraja Buče, and convsiolog, mors airy\n\nF\n\nHO TEIK SHEN, in the Juda house, Elgin Stewk ja 1, od Zum, test.\n\n*** Reserved a Frat Jendea of\n\nwerd eer and timp Works\n\nBOWRA & (3.\n\n4 1804 Wenzhong Lakh July 18th,\n\n\"BOUND and well stances PORT FIE\n\nOperior seality as 80 per dora.\n\nApply to VAUCHER A tio.\n\nU15 Fong, 1415 March, 1BUS\n\nPOF BALE BY THE UNDERSIGNED. *** Anke aru platz.\n\nPet Tiber and Marks.\n\nKidgenore de én,\n\ndil\n\nBaler Pinas mul. Päristä. Naila, wote kiza.\n\ntar\n\nGURPIEN MEARD A Q\n\nHongkong, 17% July 1805 Just landed ex St, Lowi,\"\n\nMothern arzivnie Latizo.\n\n160TR PADIES. HE Dric and beak! THAT Bri\n\n¡D SOLA\n\nX N, Q's harp RACKAY NUES Cakes vad Ixora Bun\n\ningerlag. Apply to\n\nATKA.\n\nTANG ALOR 77 Huge, A. Parte 16.\n\nA. BOTER\n\nCantenas! 105% Mouse, tark Juos, ¡nus.\n\nAN 13055, abreast WHARPAGH AND HODOWNA, * \n\nA WARTHI WHARU, with or wilboat\n\nof the Throw comparish where elabor\n\ncan te bied word change.\n\nmis might bir karm busier klippa hamurable understuives cadetin et socity ramon dark, eta arra le not her. elves, will be 21 true policy for Mr. Febo monded for its aculation. to invalide and don't know the pilti\n\nCar Ren, temi me feel at the Averaged and seality outrea the pilota. The head pi'ne www uzat no bound by is Government, Borisave won kirs to mine wat!\n\nIggy's Cabina),\n\nthe war, and the uthet was gut by Mr. bagi inipla in, and\n\n30MITTEY\n\nST facin $25 Apr 1929\n\nRIFTE ROTEL\n\nQURENS GOAD, VIIST.\n\nTesme Moderate\n\nMarried Couple; jam No25- Single\n\nThe the Hot was in sharps I 5d 10\n\n10 sena webus pelasimlas, with fewer inoltant at chitty bility, and well mit have thunght of fotorfaring and rage mi the pros of tha vinkors than nay whe with Min. priniet in thick visher Ines ia lürtme can akon, ertad by a palies a sur pela for ship, an lạp xy a gapeval charge tonin Shan vished ordinary pliuy as of the omare more ziwa by the pilot, dan obair porce to tom pang than the purpos enland and and it had ben many bandingy victor-it onto y p elter the conrea in tan vaidle wares, je i den gammle populue Omenomana (muling the way yue half a print or a prane. I should me have meninisty and levity, suis already od tamil cited.\n\nthe www in fentilado Bourage, that we earnished\n\n| Scent the Amazingas pomis to do all to their por\n\nA ducho made to beater providing\n\nany longue iban two punthe\n\n6. P. BENSOWA 1. SHAS\n\nApply to\n\nBig Couple 244 Blends, 1858.\n\nGarter of Wellingen wel 19 Aguilar Straps,\n\nHAB juive by late Mail tim blowing\n\nundicia...\n\nPrinted Musline for Salvarer Danm\n\nWe do plain for Ju\n\n901 Onch and Cerradict\n\nRizet elly Tuse Headete,\n\nBook Silk Monties\n\n45 Ledion and Children\n\net fashion,\n\nTHE OFFICE and Emad Sues and other\n\nnar of Welingt and herd Street Parsle\n\nWeak ire\n\nCharmi EN\n\nPoudel Vares,\n\nChanna Mug\n\nLes Diun\n\n11-1\n\nan Etnice of Cruysa & Blackwelle Dilaware Store\n\n$1 Overland Nail Shokes, and Sweda,\n\nPARK & va 15ay Dongsong, 6th July, 1858.\n\nDEVOLVER B, and\n\nP\n\nTE\n\nYusibor Accoutmupants. for Fates, Áu\n\nSeit lieth, (bow great..\n\nCut Mag, 1.3, 1. 9. nad 1 fret, vivo.\n\nAu Lovaine of Bell-bangirqa\n\nTel. 20, 12, 36, 40, nuð ák le. figlio, veli\n\nfi.\n\nKing, sith Bayon\n\nBerulating Hill Chebures.\n\nSim Pattern Spacial Ki\n\nDouble Navy Cabins, Swivel Beds from L'ali.\n\naber Torry.\n\nLOWRA & Or.\n\n1 162 Tongkang, bra July, 1665.\n\n¿Murein in quarts and its\n\nFNGLISH NO\n\nA larga smartment of Breakfast Clazzes, Vilau- Ikan Jerawat Sur Suluan\n\nBased from vintage of Mayaia of Hur!\n\nچھا کھا کر رہے لیئے\n\nLAMMERT, ATKINSON & C\n\nા 99 hu to 24 Yra sud\n\nJust resaved, wire B\n\nIN OLD PALE BRANDY\n\nAle poz\n\nJ. Kudaan & On,'n Brundy. $10 per Ona.\n\n| Olies khljarnan, g? per daa.\n\nULARETS.\n\n| Breasturi ask, er de\n\nMerays Morina, $44 par Que\n\n8. Raton St. Kilim and 9 Zoophe, do naci\n\nTená a presont le dba eccnpzion of Merera In a teremy Hole gee. in Mont Reuseres and Want Hare,\n\n$0.\n\n¦ Pastekaoter zud Server.\n\n150\n\nFar purtiem apply in\n\ny\n\n10.\n\n16 litung, 7th\n\n- \n\nThe Aperatura Large and bity, and wih\n\n· H\n\ni vozy embora Casa, containing & Bass\n\nBa\n\nAapry as face of die Paper,\n\ndoves and cathcurex, compridog Xt!\n\nThis our coins their wich thick weather it or in formints Bhis shasan ghatween and maket van Sally supplot well az dejo. Stridine.for three ones, a citruse!\n\nwould hawa horn wore prudent to bere anchored • centick with a eley m genervus thus it may he\n\nBut the washer alerted, no tad having fees deth fan and makeling mo at their foes. The be froix\n\nlogone a Lighterḥing and ship bara malind is soe vespesitta was so interprys thin\n\nwas beat through an areas in pigment, augen Cretinem. 14: them interprat le triba as weak allece un barb Teen site for the amnge heatating veira whiring a\n\nbene, 17h Jaly, 1865,\n\nASTOR HOUSE HOTEL,*****\n\nSHANGHAI. subed in S\n\nses of heat ce- North Daily Herityisil insscert in Ho Chi Mi\n\nwhich shall and only induta lie aver Frasines 6\n\nThe Treatment of the Hovalva Kiviky\n\nthe Nock.\n\nthe even give, Se the beamediate gregent, my\n\nfirst-ime furile Sokol in pomurgnased,\n\nPaged in it own graurők, it in po-\n\nmuch frein so be without expiry comfort and trenians\n\nLiis altres her for those who have selenjing in this clar. opptareve, to thons aan band julierly healthy and need in hinggis role Chemian, advice in the aut i hon fielding for the wine of the apparent,\n\nLinea, and it is so much adrien uocally esen 6igatop wita ma-The per\n\nHas an in. Fadi popot so batus of ananasam\n\npertama severance of the wal genities of te\n\nstaro otrained hithuria from bowl. ; \n\ning the crowd of patienter sansellore of America, !\n\nIf hazar, the people : shri United Statan will i\n\nfun to 2 Kegljah is at all, they may GOVERNMENT. LEGAL AND\n\nach a gun to that of\n\nwho here brid verunt'y tu sbale mocno while t\n\noch vill meantzinicý sad zarten! ignaming co\n\nAn o, xd who Yuma Yujulani la tènir m\n\ncer ble lagt need the\n\non with for rikiuly ma tome sited the tank!\n\n6. fur cost be too hip nt all degran, in f\n\npating in war plea for aderatiza in victory a\n\nrols which so fitta mule appro-i Arion\n\npriate the tenet that ir, fees faire sored ise svanging it\n\nbeing four content?\n\nPan, the hollowness of whide thr\n\ndomusdur tili azt flizeugh in a mout\n\nCONSULAR NOTICES\n\nIN THE SOPREME OVOR OF\n\nTONGLONG.\n\nCileriyent Pousasutus, Praag,\n\nrd\n\nof Hype Huracany Uma\n\ntending wider the\n\nand 12. Okka asp Öpmeyne tot Frudunt.\n\n11\n\nBEREAR an Aativus murdin\n\nIn in place, shen, we got urge de\n\nte\n\nthe Coat Ribe it the ke s\n\ny l'hom-bhoy alnut za\n\ne bloed |\n\nAmands of forteren te tus of langlich preesdens. Kyzurine Safranur Gal rowing an Enced\n\nRazmik, aut Lastris base basen witów die land for to project the age of Frosinoned by\n\nin\n\nEine Apartacuse are Medios and away Furnisho The Table waily up), and the\n\nle, all ughed with the choice Win a\n\n| Spirte-impratā dienņa.\n\nflat\n\nkobani ka for Ezard by the munch on\n\nMajas sash Carringe on Livogy and lera. Jason Camper mia plese pixies, 40-\n\nutiectulio lbs Hol\n\nBaiba cirnos pimey.\n\nThe Somehow fridge in kolom 4: Baudega,\n\nしてMATS\n\n.. MADON\n\nProprietor\n\n.6bu Unike is mades the dreador of Caspariancad Kronal excke.\n\nblondes-hurge $100 Fblic Dates and Tali Numers smppbel of 1264 27.4 Shanghai, 2nd March, 1965,\n\nOTEL DES COLONIER\n\nHONAM, CANTOS.\n\nar 1070 Benchng, 16h Tang, 1885, BUTO ZA LET DE SOLD\n\nSTAR HUUSK God 2000WNE, at perut soupled by Howwes, Junday & tal Apply to the Manager af Ban Bane of Hirla. t+.. \n\n198 Hoogkung, 25dı May, juos,\n\nThe Prop OWN \"ALI; Ph...\" hay. | ng Fans of Righty these foot at Wengin Rodag hitters and of on andret and foca. A burunea at coming parfarini kamu vs alone kutua aquesta featu\n\nAantal Bread (ma 21233.6.\n\nFor Pristine purligabuen uppelz ko\n\nTHE LIVINGTON D #beng Wih Priruary, 1964.\n\n***NOTICE OF RIGÓVÁL\n\ntybine kod Calerud Cicamel.\n\nColer things in Tel.\n\nThread Socks, Erst quality,\n\nLim Shirts and Cullers!\", \n\nTreatief Ardy Hate,\n\nwed\n\nRemchid Eugliah Peglunes. Trailing Bag\n\nAlse\n\nper do\n\n¡ Chataan Palmer and Tašken, $10 pử Jez.\n\n: Chau,pagan, satin, in quarte au pines.\n\nOlagte to wood.\n\nS. Jumilion, Juliem, apuk 154. Besophis,\n\nApply\n\nlike Hongkong, 5th Marril, bang\n\nA well bleed furnies de Blame\n\nEthertona. 3rd April, 1962.\n\nHandül\n\nNEW GOODS\n\nnext!\n\nEX \"TARFIX\" \"BANIAN \"EATHS. 73.s?:Y?LDS\"\n\nSew Bucks, weil selecta.\n\nTitle and Floor Hoe be the vizele\n\nOCT\n\nPany Car\n\na\n\nDany Baturajand\n\nCite! Wy\n\n||JA_BOUSTELA, has removed in Sianlay\n\n1 street, two lanes from Fastinger Street. În\n\nFear of iba tornaertiul Buck\n\nIf 1815 Hongkong Jacz le\n\nTHE Busine of the Melis B and Seat\n\nWater Mufiny c\n\nrevamped to the upparit fit of the Road,\n\ntl coupled v Messrs HotAY, Wase & Co., natriu Muzeju. Trucar & Co. and Mentre, BILET & Co.\n\n17 Honghena, a June, 1995. THE HOUSE, in the Gun Road,\n\nABAY 1.ANDANG BER eined and theat it Menarik kebilder, Wise & Ch\n\nti\n\n1323\n\nis Premis is enver\n\nTURVER & C Hongkong. Si Kay. I milă,\n\nNE\n\nCatriski Tom Chasin\n\nMemalise in iyon, Briting, Des\n\nPauta and S\n\n신디오XT 살리고,\n\nJellip\n\ncncbair.\n\nfaper Hangings, reckly chatur.\n\nPlaner Vand thiet Butle\n\nShine Histor\n\nMala Gas\n\nPild til i TUZON.\n\nLANG, CRAWFORD & U\n\n* 1956 Tow Song. 17ta Jun 1865,\n\n11TERN Hops of all sizes.\n\nBrigit artik\n\nVerma.\n\nkai de, str. Casa. Mikill and phrase: „Pranck's juegos Espuelli\n\nTE DANIJA Shapine.\n\nZia Au\n\nCAMMER, ATKINSON &\n\n40 (gong, 1ých Juan, can. DAVID. \"Ohrine and thus. Cum Hard Ter\n\nJ'aimky, Linment GI! and Purpentine\n\nyou say never wiha mubal lesdner. Cho anty loved and friars and Why Gout, for dying to Toe die Public Part she had changel precedent the ac mau yukidnon, is any anan meen 1 mages for managerpaing certain there: the my that of Hate! iso findings. For\n\nhipones parties, witch we can pleach, is Horeban; and Statua\n\nComm-tip 5.5. azove stablishment with almars be kept with our fastment in the brzo of the Potato-Gapittel, tarpainst\n\nfree in Ch 13 the anal dacis shit squforts. Not indick of\n\nmachine Eng Toure be Baba in Iran. Al these the eye of Defends what mid shaver sus Eefendant be actasun will be shared in the faute d'itheadhan ratus Bodine u\n\nAnauce, that is in totally need to Hape. padaltem is ev slight that the prunedenk juny he! or actes Sena de Vinili se pridjor flares. to boost nasies in disc sējam directivul. A varral¦ Os prlos shareef; and time raulay paid by 'ibo Bear in attenten on arrival at Herer Stemmer ndvatur his autor for Henry, willak wid korenitor\n\nfar netenden at talmát ábree num, proposing to disopter it me Plaintiff for t\n\nat Iris\n\ntear Ball Bea; de chavez Phuseneste ta the Hotel, tree of sEnego, and soul fatima mokier. De $25 per viomac fr nespreted Mr. Sinis O'Brien for the Pole-incere far te bere izen by the Kadome Lasne will aka Silke Beariera \"st. Stanger anil $29 for? szer.\n\nT. HARINY Garden Rebellion, what pandant should we | Pole the Thement of my tue from the moderato luxion. late indicted on him if he`trat, ben er agminasful | Plažati to the Defendant: nad it being alleged¦ Mr. Jetorean Ladis — monii pot field an un- that the mht Bycunjee Hormujee Deuna dega mot t\n\nPendeng in Judia w roeide wishin this folyad na je de\n\nTHE P\n\nVAL LANDINE,\n\nKaroger.\n\nSM SWAT Frogs fiz okresent struth asi matiunny. ! Writ of Yonaga áthassants, ) Fra 2016 Couten, 27th July, 1850.\n\nLavio jasued\n\nTHE EASTERN PRIVATE\n\nFAMILY HOTEL.\n\n142 enge, Jetli Awil, 1005.\n\nFor Sale.\n\n'UNE STRİNEERS 1657\n\nsapoys and exccasid valanez bositation a webus torvable nu slík firem any of dupsi arah, stone-i\n\nvilian retoma ather she rabellion had ingejin Zestonjeo kapuciiarýni Neris of Vlabria, in Ben the Peas simture. Az example, the deliny on Brezhong. Marchet, and withic nets a low waste. Y e In Faring Hand and there arly lead of the places Fadies. dba, bulerardengs nes dartsinly not kerplamikdo į same plate, alarphanie, sky Canisters,\n\nJ\n\nour Propria fe how this BOOK JOANNES 1857, Cams of\n\nà vishing this Pet and the poshte semenity, the br\n\nSPARKLING WELLS KOMPA\n\nBOOK EHRYSPREITEIN. CALE, in Cush\n\nthan the man of the Bouth. Again aut noly were Notes is hereby given thareut and testbed his prins uppste e tuls the bars of the Reach pepelin 1945 cases time hefte nje in akis, unto the forcibly to the thousan Club, bad then, but new last and to beat code só pranja Rocca Care, darurier Boss in the viraniay of 11.X. of 1 arzon. hlari Enst Mehon 204 Mr. Hallam, shhör;anid, or say too on bẩy beha) w give the\n\nBead Ford (juven's Food, Eat. The Ronna absolutely justify one intimate their bidu ja Pavony i zamurity and miljer mod file the sapretencë e” piem í of the bayering za judiamus. Ailer the groak bejuteve ny thin Ordnance of thận dictio Finach war, hee heen ramulis pad ont in led An Uzitsuer to provide facile expenas buvo kompared in were he for acantemporary, Land, d'arthronyl din vce merupli\n\nces in Actions Live agvities porn kentut Frandow, Bush of a destly lives vu tu pro\n\ntance his bug that haploon will be devas the tolong, the at anche m\n\n하\n\nTech] vt og França, blid as rebel uthe Dinoinen, dewward and exreated, and wax only dentaʻul of\n\nthy wisins of this course bruauen he dought it\n\nKain wharbre it would taarl to lexicutiva\n\nwith adeintertainty. Is may be mid «bot if a gonze vabullion in Ireland were now w break 12 sustained for indz barn, we emrinialy shod na burg, the useful anders alik tu! wa hope not, has we contesa ven Sunt very Bes\n\nnotave advent or friends\n\non to who mighards, what clapeceriă-nts ¦\n\ncamily in print are, on the arbete, zo very itide in ganzdanas min bai hepthooke\n\nNet veze the American oran\n\nDabad this 15 dag er lag, vu. 16,\n\nF. C. R. OVEN\n\nil Honghont, 2846 Suty, 1905.\n\nmultica Bam strange igen wlish, Relm me prevalent, wat all canaing for\n\nMetota zgre e\n\ndisainioston rebellion and only in\n\nthe South ledths the energ\n\nmar, the asing of the delito extendun. I\n\nriseer in the fate) SALT\n\nIN TAN SORAME COCKT OF BOSAKOND.\n\n• riktad with antico now\n\ntre altringe shacagimas, me to pay no\n\nEides the wine listing teams Fan Town Pipes\n\nTable d'lium et ull hwch. Tama moderne.\n\nApply k\n\nREYJULIA &tio.\n\nisan ungling, 10th June, 1904, tANNE), (036, (ia Ling-brads) todella mit\n\nHuosobit parfe\n\nGEORGE HOTELIXELMORA,\n\nHeunge and Propriece\n\nChammer i\n\nChanapar in\n\nde d\n\nSeantech\n\nfeet, and\n\nSets, Fue\n\nApply to\n\n12m 1974 Hoogk veg, Vuk Juna. 1962,\n\nconclude, in 3 doors, camın,\n\nFEED, T. SMITH,\n\n6pkan, \"Hi Jasonery. 1863,\n\nManil\n\nVivian's drug and Sees Slow Me!\n\nand patio Nais. Tourism M\n\nSOLD & Co lungo, but Now, 18,\n\n1Jght thedra F\n\n7062 Gari Makra\n\nHigh Barden Mara.\n\nLight Sebie Forks pic\n\nLight Garden Spader.\n\nContbrug'n Boer Guns, Herman Mackin\n\nSOWKA (. \n\nTin loi khen nhing, ach July, 194\n\nAN Ince of \"terated Wan\n\nJA\n\n! \n\nGRERURY & SA\n\nPUGHT W\n\nBugg, thing,\n\nPBLIC TOISES \"Gura Bed\"\n\nto Con\n\nThis Pess.\n\negnng, 18th July, 15%.\n\nUN; FOR SALMI\n\nCAMILANA man dah party Thar porannes YOCOYSAD Lo Frears, and White su mi beitehing Splab Berd\n\nFurthering Sew Sight Cowered Hockeklu Twowane, the Osvinge is van Polve and tw: pairs of i\n\nShames of double 15 mana\n\n\"Apply t\n\nBrakes darrers dann, wanau, Housos, Lands, Tenements, de, Wiki,\n\nTKY MANOR,\n\n2. Tikai\n\nsau, Wiz\n\nJa rank WH\n\ntably tention the Hiɲlk.\n\nhe firm of JARGIR, Here\n\nG3MPANY Pkalabif's,\n\nJoey Manny Porci\n\nha\n\nda\n\nthecate, or fires of les P Sam Lnfanduma,\n\nde court al the veil of chen sinte\n\nTO LET\n\nEw to Becek. A\n\nTDE lower part of the Previze wind by\n\n|| \n\nWhite Pigs And Varjoile Wa\n\n2.06.\n\n' Club,\n\nדי ריח\n\nБаром\n\nBokkie, curd Ple Meram. I. Mazur, & tra Torgan. Tucs, and Beck and Doors Aprons\n\nALLES & CLAUSSHN Rosis patira in the same Bilding\n\nLANG vs. 24th Hwch, thu5.\n\ntientars, syple 15\n\nC. DAVID, My blessing Seal, from 14 to 3d ca\n\ntf 1956 Hongkong, 24th July 1955, mj........ \n\neping on the age of His returning prufiga Resas ar Adon hub carenced rises to 2 and S. Ten Staviti sladusent | Nothing can be. We do but to my\n\nAlly\n\n18ng, Juan 12 18415,\n\nPesa Pangong Pir Maker\n\n13. this walk is mar (granen of the stars Jacifios. Ja sall, Juma che i cones Contato and der 500,000) Pak and Berú trag\n\n13+ and 250 win\n\n-- TEENS RAPDV DONGKONG.\n\nAt Cheap essay.\n\nthe Penisy Port.\n\nKry\n\nChurcia, Greakfast and Pieter,\n\nPapolis, vintaga täna., \n\nArded Tigur\n\nPurane.\n\n3 wit\n\nBeauty (Ougima).\n\nChablir,\n\nSewer\n\nAwes\n\nKindly\n\n15 Honglung, 25ch February, Tauð,\n\nNeonora Druse & Hinckwell.\n\nPUSENJE Cauliomis\n\nHorse Ma\n\nT\n\nFrench and Spanish Diam\n\nPraits in So\n\nin Seyrand Birmaly\n\njuter, in engural finalen\n\ned, and Twine.\n\nGist White Impe\n\nLinand Di\n\n14.\n\nIran Boller Pinces and sheets, True) að a\n\ndivacion, in caster whine and vary,\n\nThi\n\nAir\n\nBerriro Klant\n\nBURNOG & tr. Peru's Whart\n\nHong, 153 May, 1836.\n\nPERER DETON KUTTER, in begs of 12\n\nSant Wilk Crators,\n\nPickled Cabbage (Singochami) za jara Danch Curry Stent Rotden (Wyuan :Parbiak.)\n\nBitless Reeserantine Spiritmes.\n\ndise;\n\nPer read\n\n4 van fartion of Berelvets with sout\n\nKai attached, neu kucesine,\n\nAVAAN. BETHEUS & SK, \n\nFAANDUYA\n\n3 making, 1919 Jejuny, 1395\n\n† CAT KRORIYBO, vid Fry Nrie by the\n\nCurlersigued.\n\nSharp's Ourlinen. Sartridger and Primer, Pools Lamplvera\n\nKorkbod Wren's Havelters. (Bian haecalled\n\nsilver plate.) \n\nDESUVAR A 12,\n\n28: Hongkong, 29 Macuh, 1800.\n\nANTEMRIOR PRINTING PAPER, in vuriuka\n\nSKSSE ULLERA & Ca\n\nrapon Himgiring, Bist July, Jan.\n\nTESTADA. Syable uram.\n\ning from 5 set, ta do mar,\n\nBAY 4\n\nbongkeun. 199th June, Tams.\n\nUde zopired by the gezurizued- 360 for matc\n\nAn astmoul of Confection in Torvides of time, f, and boo\n\n142_55 par god below, tóm market prius, a\n\nVruitia Cherplsia\n\nFivefingar, tin Ch\n\nCe\n\nPagri\n\nP\n\nwilevice Mangalent\n\nPioklys, Lumina, Tutt\n\nSobique. Opferd nan Gamesonge Surges,\n\nin\n\n\"T4TH FS 6.4.0.\n\njul IANA MOJ bany, Beh dhir, |Rajh\n\n- TE\n\nCARA MAIGN. Szennina Muke) \n\nU\" Dag de Murtikale.\n\nLurace Nei, he panels are Pte.\n\nJenterar à 03.\n\nCart Blanket Dani Pinin,\n\nBurgen liegt.\n\nFrau de Grene, ir. Qaside and Pints. Lienaine Buck.\n\n1837. Det\n\nkan warIPS & OM 1 - July, 1\n\nVALJARLY 15 AT TORPOTEN\n\nLOW OF GROUND, steprising almus 24. ALES. Finner at of the maliy Encautios Putolous, Trolig bal Fio of the Hurrading Smery, sad Bayonining other Spice ta thi, tavržen there. of Ke of Thron Bungalow, Broken, unig 3121 por Šante\n\nestinoria of way\n\nHuco Vercheni Taich, in skin.\n\nPusher Ektoms.\n\nc.prizing-- \n\nPrint Wine Event Leather BOOTS\n\nK\n\nCall JOTS\n\nTel\n\nFou\n\n해\n\nSi\n\n- BTS\n\nCalf SHONY.\n\nDouble SHOES,\n\n/Xo!o Eiding_kkis,\n\ni Shoes, A\n\nguzleð kirola.\n\nOpkomnes veliking the Coung of Hongkang si Food tray\n\nother Brun That,\n\nand italt shoes 1 sist sie die waer\n\nactiuter\n\nBy ldalon Persian\n\nVOTORIA SXCHAÑON.\n\nPRALOCK, q qurat poctivate w TOS, he hadle of this\n\nCoy is ted and place Mwick of My Dracena the flimpïve andun\n\nHANDY DREA\n\nSi huge walvis, 30 to 30 prouts que pode Poles. Cort Arsantren, 21 586 por Tickle Mix Glute A2 in at Singa\n\nthe Rilling Kabis. Plains Mulajen, in laygro wapinday.\n\nMALINS 30 French Fried Acuez, 25 behin pure. de\n\n2 min. 33 werdet for gir\n\nsriginal price 50 Dunte\n\nThe above in met missy in find at Po a trates muck of his bangk Ubogazin, SE\n\nPer dir\n\nLolizam\n\nAjgilz\n\nLevastik\n\nBOWRA .\n\nP Hongkong, Sur Sarch, 1865.\n\nPROVOU VILIANO, Tom &\n\nis plan mynted and Figured.\n\nDUESS HAKIKO\n\nI move the inwangement of the claws Doors\n\nMake fuck hy kan desal. having\n\nAris dans Gun, Culte alle exere in large Ents, ni\n\nApply un\n\nARNEMANN 4\n\n4132 Hungring 16 May, 1844\n\nHONGKONG\n\norder\n\nrecht so fize will be really and Hougang 10 July, 1955,\n\npred\n\n·MARKETS\n\nthe tick Jelly --- \n\nEniet othe\n\n2.40s. Wilt Shirkog\n\nb. Grcy Shielangs\n\nPri she above we are now for Holiday. Wine & iu 1795 169 own? Amie Bounce, War and\n\nTROMAS UNT & de\n\nJeweler\n\nPrime 220\n\n10 1ngking Apr. 195) \n\nJAYITAMIN KRANDY BUT 190, OHAME\n\nSUDREY Y\n\nPORT\n\n414\n\nBULLY A\n\nMagt jose kandež os si\n\ncitation. Facinaren everywhere spak ma il | drow, fierbert Si. Loger Marrige, Velius Ken is were a bites desapalatinos to dana to find cink, and Edsall Whiteall, trading as aforesaid, rants Reoma, und Ukaitanto, having a Depactes i jab duck up o lat iulier one mat, termed rebeliion voce nest, crazyding is the aber Tarand dahi bareng Purpia, * 15 1ા મમત store al lago into perse nun sanity. Do they \n\nvreuliug në uformaid, to recuror the sum at Miner\n\n#upport than the of thờ kiuď vogli bove boru; The and heren Hundent paltarlar bioves\n\nتا نا نیام در ایه \n\nJ. 2. FOR RENKLOS.\n\nFraght without adinal didapata në voglat prime pad by the Phinish wed for the Redes. It new! Hangkang, 80th July. Pasa,\n\nke, nové that that radical difference will destas ! dene qe his request and the money mos ng she jam\n\npeas within clot? There is no queries in Doen and the inlets TEB in Rabins Was. Iemelawly | Ahut in uldlar mary but dixinal werkstangy fee from dis Defined on the Platati\n\nJa the Averman, allow the sad thorne et jazera by the Priest\n\npakiti 15 of the the Bates to be fond stity requel and for unty fun\n\naqua Nia more intacters which jus be ou fecam the Dubzidays ca un Palujte! governed them\n\nTo\n\n| \n\nmit the mat. dry badlew be vight ang with e great grin or sunt stated beson shem; and bein leg there with John Mariat Punto Enez Ju\n\ncombining dir\n\nIYA FTL & Co\n\n4\n\nFaran, Hama,\n\nSet of this Athics.\n\nFor parientes, apply to\n\nFasa\n\n5th Jetz, 1896.\n\n70\n\nONE SET.\n\ncambo nk komen; noul, adtes vietas, to leh tus aveda treslila ucărie shim belyden ja Joycedente 1 of diced he trackpen, afzend wizzled by a show, Weis of Foreign Attachment is hiền sưmund te | Donmakinar Stara tag in lint in the 1st aya temp for the purees of tuneteen the S\n\n·Samrih day of\n\ndiets and hewan lés, suply in Willen Bur\n\nof ruk girara! \n\n1. Was the pth and event of sine mesi\n\nNearer the zhip even\n\nCain and Burgoede Uriends Ransely pint by them, albo 2. C\n\nAir\n\nNAWROJEY\n\ndagawiwjng Mela, ut Hongyoug. Merabunt, Aus Bize all wieght we mag wecution, that there Barles Beard, of in sum Hot\n\nza pipeady buen oder Choker\n\nthued wear a trended Free State Onrried.\n\nthere too on the Coin, and that in dieci wish held Musica heretg gian thereof and what it extime in ape thy with y te ako anal judgment in Action dha rotalon white is lastel, and of course in and Jehu Yutres is 355\n\nthe things were read. Is the bebull will va size security arise and wants or plea verdited by the di-\n\nww\n\nFinalists dowy ( refired a rote when of this Salad intituled and\n\nJa kivan nat O'ERINTY MUJAN to the rebelikon\n\n5. Bintly shwer had advised the preside for and regelves Job\" Bessili\n\nNe party in Married in-thes mahtinas persoas Cru the\n\nie withou\n\ntucco, in Byftient selvm] \n\nvation weak - og Beted the 2d Jay of July, 4.9. 16,\n\nsiniz: neten die water prículo, giving jurge\n\nmajozition pary where for inquineis úti eyein\n\ntocked with the wit regime, if thick be pro-\n\ndolly allowed sint wit cards recebus slavery\n\nR 1% 8. UKER\n\nLitointiglia Kiliman\n\nSu Kang, 294) July 7865\n\nSown\n\nefect Tesk Kinder. Plus | \n\nRards. Cool tlich up 14 techniques.\n\nBUR SPARS-rea whes to 21 initum; \n\n#par\n\nŠHIPS ENRE pieces izoma 15 15 16 inches\n\nFor Male to Suit at the\n\nNOTES YARD,\"\n\nStrayer Thway.\n\nAps & BERGEN & Bosa\n\n360changani Cozu\n\nTESUUR\n\n! Pay!\n\nFORLEANS\n\nLASTS, RAWFORD & 4%.\n\nethering that pow T de. Parth who began at\n\nBirty & Co.\n\n3 08\n\nI\n\n200 asured Fartings\n\n| Funk hig kong\n\n** the L'atang.' \n\ni bunso C, Tinted\n\nea.30\n\n? warg\n\n121 Bangkang 22rl. June, 12495.\n\n1.605\n\n409\n\nRhrers Eil Bhil\n\nYoru\n\n| €15,00\n\nTye-shire-we\n\n1 on pes. 2-4 na. Pray Bridge\n\n130\n\nmag-m-Laong\n\nx5\n\ndazivno, 35, an\n\n12.\n\nમ\n\n-1\n\n20.\n\nClu\n\nNG\n\n| fvek-bing-hunk\n\ni\n\n10\n\nCheong-bong\n\nk.\n\n30.00 yu-shing-wo\n\n1.\n\n12.00\n\ntiger deg. Harab-qu\n\n21 50\n\nParker lied Shirtings\n\n3.24\n\nleis are\n\nYETU\n\n110.00ascon Karham\n\n31\n\n24\n\n3.\n\n22.0\n\n1024\n\nAc\n\n130.00\n\nGewerchan\n\nlouratio\n\ntialum\n\n20.10\n\n26.25\n\nTin-wa-oberg\n\n31.C\n\njworg-buce s\n\n4.-17\n\n245\n\n2.\n\nForely\n\ng-bu fa\n\nST Tunin\n\nTrueline B.\n\nJuha Pright,\n\napply\n\nLANNERY, STRIXSON & Ga\n\nIf 168 Torghan, The Jans, 1968.\n\n2413' (or Durga Marie\n\nChange, petent les ad homes. To triedy and Be Pittings, Michael Sol\n\nste v\n\nMy 50 PAD. Gut. Often 1874 Hengzung 1 day 1815.\n\nFase of us wider to ban s\n\nMajce, Jokana à 116 Chi\n\na tha Putpu X, babarza Munata\n\nÁ do\n\nCali- \n\norquays Ropish Had Kreno Preement on \n\n- Tuilet, Deanor Breakfas \n\nzuht sa] Yorgungen by Dan, Disarm- 3 22:46, Kuat Mersin, and Thegara Ip: As Brandier, Jus ita in Cangre.\n\nis Barth, 1945. 20'er\n\nBAHLMANN & dig, \n\ngkung, 1th July, 1866 \n\nDosen's Blood Court foo \n\nor Dwelling an \n\nPrata \n\nAMM \n\nINSON & C \n\ngloog, the Hay, 0. \n\nProna Yok Emiliefire Über.. \n\nJuru tandı) Jur bulu \n\n.. Walker of tin \n\n--beg \n\nLegall, Stijl & 12% \n\nSamyang 192 \n\nPaonian & 130. \n\nSorrahjen & Co. \n\nWing-clock \n\nTHURAS The retine A28. Merchant \n\nFARMENT, ATKINSON & DA. \n\nLese Hengene. 14th June, 145. \n\n50 \n\nBars New AMB PK. \n\nAily in \n\nLANNUT, ATKISHON & 1709 Hongline, 20 June ish \n\nWho-is-long \n\n60. \n\nWashing-doing \n\nwith. Kanny & Co. Kwang-y-luk \n\nPralon de \n\n2004, e intere \n\n195 \n\nAd Cletu \n\nhangbai Cheat \n\n4] plm, #gi°2 cce \n\n3,0ewekwang, Tele Pr \n\n4 bursima The \n\n1.000 es No. 1- Iran Na Rad \n\n240 \n\n•pla. Black Pepper \n\nJ. Am Merchant \n\nSHANGHAI LATEST QUOTATIONS \n\nWejdy, renting, 2001 July, 1949, \n\nwo Jen diradi, « ma, No 3ja per Tir \n\nse for fries/every Orucite 5ANILA GUERGO, LISANS VGBANGK-Lututionament: Race, e. vs. e. a Cocrate, & 10f2 Run. 1.97 \n\npline agosto de59955 \n\nBLACKHEAD & Bo. \n\nned travele ve- of 10 Xue \n\nlegs bond the Stora Ship \"N-: \n\nBands Bour \n\n2. GARRITA, ! Honghong, Is Noveller, 1801, ARRAY, P. Memile, Chassagne, las \n\nH \n\n! telt.\" (lats\" People' \n\n505 \n\n42 CM. Todel & feather's Park Sherry and Hardy. \n\napply on \n\nIBR, LEVIX497UN 3. \n\n1994 Vengkang tich July 1960. \n\nis Deements, \n\nUn Port-dila je Fig. 7.4 per \n\nthe Paiteta \n\n4. \n\njülla Ansonicat, 345. Re. 15. \n\nInflatabog, strand, sin\n\nHuskongan Ball: 217 pg Jince. Hvirale 15 e 291 901 w26 dinch Heck, and Brass, Alp Bra Fate ALMON 73.25. Carlos-7.42. Cal Blues, disco Tim. 66. Bar Silver, Lin, Bles Back mud barking.\n\nApply to\n\nSXV & io.\n\nlong+60) \n\n111 Capper Cali. 1,225 p OPICH-utum, Nor. In 132, DOVOD\n\nArt Ke Te 30 £16.24, Pik, 23.30 pet Yin of så fre\n\n¡FREIGHT 2 Milk, 61 poron of short.\n\nTap.\n\nI's Ney Turk\n\nAttending veiving Inadravšiegs to nocain Mr. Poland, A. Drying Heizwer decked and Crgy,...... Acinding Mr. Polland reurcuith... \n\n1 \n\n} \n\n3 \n\nJeding 26. Peifend fixing Cumarie-so tang Pascallado as Cnread with Mr. Foliard also a Chanel joining Istine Jacky demateris sud vaporta ve! \n\n10 \n\n260 \n\n1 base bere . . . Cond \n\nP. Puted prin fre... \n\nCe \n\nJuice, 24th Jalan Sovata laying her mominj See the Appritet uticaling Mr. Fabj jant hath apa ciaria, Crocolitis, į Aveng (inmal zi Coursiu mna jur \n\nvastag bremsest, and Opinions delivered! 5 Til Hr Polled his B....... \n\nUG", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-106 - Acting Governor Mercer - 1865 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 284414, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]", "page_number": 309, "title": "CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4]", "content_text": "long thông trong không \n\n4437 \n\n**Circular.** \n\n305 \n\n[6] \n\nsee R. v. Douglas, 12, L.J. 49, Q.B. and II. Chitty's Statutes, (3rd Edition,) Note p. 69.] On the face of the Depositions there is ample proof of Homicide and no proof of Justification. The Committal was by a competent Court and in every other respect warranted by Law and the accused should be remanded to await the action of the Executive in the matter.\n\nAt the close of the Attorney General's Argument, the Chief Justice handed to him a Paper containing six additional points which he expressed his desire to hear argued, and of which the following is a copy.\n\n1. In case the Nouvelle Penelope had been a British ship carrying these Coolies on the high seas under the circumstances proved by the depositions, would she or would she not have come within the 5 Geo. 4 c. 113, and would or would not the Captain under that Act have been subject to suffer death \"as pirates, felons and robbers upon the seas ought to suffer\" up to 1 Vict. c. 91, when the penalty was lessened to transportation for a period not less than 15 years.\n\n2. In case this Prisoner and the other Coolies had valuable property as was in the case of the Aunamites which the Captain had taken from them and was keeping in his Cabin and was taken, and keeping their persons and their property on the high seas, would or would not the taking the property by the Captain have been Piracy or at least such a state of circumstances as would have justified their rising and if necessary killing the Captain to regain their property and liberty.\n\n3. Would or would not the Coolies on board the Nouvelle Penelope in either Case come within the designation of slaves, according to the definition in Section II of 6 and 7 Vic. c. 98. Property is res estimabilis, but it is a maxim as old as Jenkins and as I believe as King Alfred the Great and older still, Libertas est res inestimabilis.\n\n4. Is there any and if any what difference in the status of slavery as dealt with by the statutes collected in 1 Rus., chap. 18, p. 243, ed. 1865, whether that status was originally brought about legally or illegally, by kidnapping or by a voluntary consent to go.\n\n5. According to English Law can a man by consent become or be a slave and does his consent affect or not affect his status or the criminality or innocence of the person holding him in slavery.\n\n6. Can he contract away his liberty any more than he can contract away his life, and if taking the Prisoner's life with his consent (e.g. shooting him) would be Murder, would or would not taking his liberty with like consent subject the taker of the liberty to the same penalties as if it had been originally taken by force.\n\nThe Attorney General declined to argue the above Six Points on the ground that they were raised upon suppositious facts, of which he contended there was no evidence upon the Depositions.\n\nF.O. `wif. 30 May` \n71668 \n`Svr 54/20` \nJ. Lucia \nIndexed \n54 \n1168870 \nSiducia \n\nRE \nMAY. 6 \n1871 \n\n**Government House Hong Kong** \nsythe March, 1875.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nI have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of Your Lordship's Circular despatch of the 1st of December, informing me that Her Majesty's Government...\n\nThe Right Honorable \nThe Earl of Kimberley, \nHer Majesty's Principal Secretary of State, \n...year... \nJo", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-149 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 310410, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]", "page_number": 536, "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]", "content_text": "1 \n\nnent.\" In Paley on Summary Convictions, p. 172, the author, in describing the general qualities of a conviction, makes remarks to the same effect. Of course, greater nicety is required in the cases of summary convictions, and where the commitment is in execution, than where prisoners are remanded or committed to prison for further disposal only. But I am of opinion that in cases of rendition, the accused are entitled to the protection of every formality the law throws around them, and that it is the duty of a court before whom they claim their discharge to see that there has been no shortcoming in this respect. After very careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that there was no jurisdiction to justify the commitment of these thirteen men, and that the necessary formalities have not been complied with. There is no complaint, no information, no communication forwarded or made to the Magistrate. The learned Attorney-General refers us to Chitty's Criminal Law, page 11, 113, where it is stated that even if the warrant of commitment is informal, the Court will look at the depositions to see if there was sufficient ground laid to detain the party; and if a various offence is shown, they will not discharge or bail the prisoners. I certainly consider the commitment informal; but if I look at the depositions, I find still greater irregularities. No doubt, there is prima facie proof of murder, but I also find two charges rolled into one, their order being inverted. No information; no statement that the accused were called upon to plead. Above all, it does not appear that they were asked what they had to say in their defence, although they might have been able to show beyond a doubt either mistaken identity or an alibi, or some defence within the province of the Magistrate to hear. No opportunity was afforded them to do so. If the letter of the Chinese officials is to be relied upon to give jurisdiction, there is no proof that they are the persons mentioned in it. The return to the writ of habeas corpus shows that they were committed under names differing from those in the writ, and it is not sufficient that the Magistrate satisfied himself of their identity; proof is required.\n\nI will only add a few words as to the reasonableness of the detention. Nothing can be more opposed to the laws of Great Britain, so jealous of personal liberty, than a lengthened imprisonment pending a penal destination. It is considered oppressive, and under a writ of habeas corpus, a discharge from prison may be obtained unless the accused is brought to trial within a certain time. This does not exactly apply in cases of rendition in this Colony or elsewhere, but the spirit is shown in the French and American Convention Acts, where the accused was protected from a long detention; and in the Extradition Act of 1870, it is provided that in the case of fugitive criminals in British possessions, a judge of any court exercising the like powers as the Court of Queen's Bench exercises in England may exercise the power of discharging a criminal when not conveyed within two months out of such British possession. By a recent Ordinance providing for the mutual surrender of criminal fugitives in Macao and Hongkong, the limit of detention is one month. It is to be regretted that the Extradition Act of 1870 is not extended to this Colony, or that our Ordinance 2 of 1850 is not repealed and re-enacted in clear and precise terms.\n\nI am, however, of opinion that the Court is bound by the provisions of the Ordinance, which makes it lawful for a Magistrate to commit such person (i.e., one who there is probable cause for believing, being a subject of China, has committed a crime or offence against her laws) for safe custody to prison, and to direct the gaoler to detain him until he shall receive some order from the Governor of Hongkong, relative to his further detention, discharge, or transmission. The law, therefore, places the discharge of persons so committed in the discretion of the Governor, who is alone responsible that their detention does not exceed reasonable limits, and I think that the Court has no power to interfere on this ground. I am, however, of opinion that the Magistrate had no jurisdiction; that the proceedings were bad ab initio, and therefore that, however much it may be regretted that persons who have, on the face of the depositions, been guilty of the murder of three of their fellow creatures should escape from the punishment which by the law of our own country is awarded to their crime, the prisoners must be discharged. We, therefore, order them to be discharged.\n\nMr. Justice Russell said—I am likewise of opinion that the prisoners must be discharged on the ground that the return to the writ is insufficient and not according to law, and that the whole proceedings were coram non judice. The jurisdiction given to the magistrate in this case is special, as in all extradition cases, and must appear clearly on the face of the warrant of committal. We cannot, I think, look behind the commitment to sustain it as in other cases (of offences against the laws of our own country—ex-parte Bosset 9 Jurist & G),\n\nBut even if that were possible, nothing is to be obtained here from the conviction or order, for the depositions returned to the writ of certiorari show that the prisoners were illegally before the magistrate in the first instance, being arrested not by a Justice of the Peace but by a Police Constable without any authority from a Justice of the Peace and simply on the information of a Chinese who told him that there were thirteen men in a certain house who had committed murder on the mainland some time before.\n\nReferring shortly to the law warranting the arrest and rendition of refugee Criminals to China, the first provision that we have is contained in the Treaty of the Bogue 1843—art. IX, which is as follows:—\"If lawless natives of China, having committed crimes or offences against their own Government, shall flee to Hongkong or to the English ships of war, for refuge, they shall, if discovered by the English officers, be handed over at once to the Chinese officers for trial and punishment; if it should be ascertained or suspected by the officers of the Government of China whither such criminals and offenders have fled, a communication shall be made to the proper English officer in order that the said criminals and offenders may be rigidly searched for and on proof or admission of their guilt, delivered up,\" (then as to surrender of British Criminal fugitives.). It will be seen that the terms were very wide and that apparently no legal procedure was necessary—and there is no law or Ordinance that I can find for the carrying out that stipulation until Ord. 2 of 1850, which is an Ord. entitled: \"An Ordinance to provide for the more effective carrying out of the Treaties between Great Britain and China in so far as relates to Chinese Subjects within the Colony of Hongkong.”\n\nThe treaty of the Bogue was abrogated in 1858, and the Treaty of Tientsin of that year contained a provision in its 21st Article of a much more guarded description—\"If Criminals, Subjects of China, shall take refuge in Hongkong or on board the British ships there, they shall upon due requisition by the Chinese Authorities be searched for, and on proof of their guilt be delivered up.” Up to the year 1871, the extradition of all Chinese criminals was carried out under the provisions of Ordinance 2 of 1850 and the 21st section of the Treaty, but in that year, the application of the Ordinance to the Treaty was much discussed in the Kwok A-sing case, and it was decided by the Chief Justice that the Ordinance had ceased to have any effect. Ordinance 2 of 1871 was then passed, re-enacting Ordinance 2 of 1850 and declaring it to apply to the Treaty of Tientsin. The position, therefore, is that the provisions of Ord. 2 of 1850 are those which govern the legal tribunals of the Colony in questions of Chinese extradition—assuming for the moment that such provisions are co-ordinate to those of the Treaty.\n\nThe first Section of the Ordinance shows three ways in which the magistrate may be placed in the position of having to investigate and commit. (1) If moved, as I read the section, by a complaint; by an information or a communication from a Chinese officer to ask for an order of arrest, or as the Chief Justice prefers to read it, by the \"Complaint\" or \"information\" of any one—or a Chinese officer. (2) If during the investigation of some charge against A, he finds that B, a Chinese subject, is in the Colony, a fugitive criminal, he will issue his warrant for arrest. 3rd—If, whilst investigating a charge against A already in custody, it transpires that A is a Chinese fugitive criminal, then he may investigate the crime that he is charged with in China. Again, under section IV, an order of arrest may be issued by the Governor corresponding to a Secretary of State's warrant under the Act of 1870—which may put the magistrate in motion.\n\nNow, by the terms of the ordinance, if at the end of his investigation, which must be conducted as if it were an indictable offence, the magistrate should find that \"there is reasonable and probable cause for believing &c.\" he is required to commit to prison pending the orders of the Governor; and he is also required to forward to the Governor all the proceedings in the case—Sec. III. It has been pointed out by the learned Chief Justice that the prisoners were not before the Magistrate in any of the four ways warranted by the ordinance, and the papers returned under the writ of certiorari do not show that the proceedings were forwarded.\n\n534", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 360008, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-271 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1896 [1-4]", "page_number": 204, "title": "CO129-271 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1896 [1-4]", "content_text": "# In the Vice Admiralty Court of Hong Kong\n\n## Admiralty Jurisdiction\n### [Title of Action.]\n\n## ANSWER.\n\n1. The Defendants admit that the statement of facts contained in the Petition is substantially correct, except that the reshipment of the cargo on board the \"Crosby\" was completed by 4 a.m. on the 30th April.\n\n2. The Defendants submit to the judgment of the Court to award such a moderate amount of salvage to the Plaintiffs under the circumstances aforesaid as to the said court shall seem meet.\n\n(Signed) \nC. D. dv., Defendants\n\n## REPLY.\n\nIn the Vice-Admiralty Court of Hong Kong \nAdmiralty Jurisdiction \n[Title of Action.]\n\nThe Plaintiffs deny the statement contained in the 1st paragraph of the Answer, that the shipment of the cargo was completed by 4 a.m. on the 30th April.\n\nDated the \nday of \n18 \n(Signed) \nA.B., &c. Plaintiffs.\n\n## PETITION.\n\nIn the Vice Admiralty Court of \nHong Kong \n[Title of Action.] \nWrit issued \n18\n\n1. The \"Emu\" is a steam tug belonging to the Whitby Steam Boat Company, of six tons register, with engines of 40 horsepower nominal, and was at the time of the circumstances herein-after stated manned by a crew of five hands.\n\n2. Just before midnight on the 22nd of July 1876, when the \"Emu\" was lying in Whitby harbour, her master was informed that a screw steamship was ashore on Kettleness Point. He at once got up steam, but was not able, owing to the tide, to leave the harbour till about 1.45 a.m. of the 23rd.\n\n3. About 2 a.m. the \"Emu\" reached the screw steamship, which was the \"Newcastle,\" which was fast upon the rocks, with a kedge and warp out. The wind was about N., blowing fresh; the sea was smooth, but rising; the tide was flood.\n\n4. The master of the \"Emu\" offered his services, which were at first declined by the master of the \"Newcastle\"; shortly afterwards the kedge warp broke and the \"Newcastle\" swung square upon the land and more upon the rocks. The master of the \"Newcastle\" then asked the master of the \"Emu\" to tow him off, and after some conversation it was agreed that the remuneration should be settled on shore.\n\n5. About 3 a.m. those on board the Emu got a rope from the \"Newcastle\" on board, and began to tow. After some towing this rope broke. The tow line of the \"Newcastle\" was then got on board the \"Emu,\" and the \"Emu\" kept towing and twisting the \"Newcastle,\" but was unable to get her off till about 5 a.m., when it was near high water. The master of the \"Emu\" then saw that it was necessary to try a click or jerk in order to get the \"Newcastle\" off, and accordingly, at the risk of straining his vessel, he gave a strong click in a northerly direction, and got the \"Newcastle\" off.\n\n6. The master of the \"Emu\" then asked if the \"Newcastle\" was making water, and was told a little only, but as he saw that the hands were at the pumps he kept the \"Emu\" by the \"Newcastle\" until she was abreast of Whitby. He then inquired again if any assistance was wanted, and being told that the \"Newcastle\" was all right, and should proceed on her voyage, he steamed the \"Emu\" back into Whitby harbour about 7 a.m.\n\n7. About 8 a.m. a gale from N.E., which continued all that day and the next, came on to blow with a high sea. If the \"Newcastle\" had not been got off before the gale came on she would have gone to pieces on the rocks.\n\n8. By the services aforesaid the \"Newcastle\" and her cargo and the lives of those on board her were saved from total loss.\n\n9. The \"Newcastle\" is a screw steamship of 211 tons register, and was bound from Newcastle to Hull with a general cargo and 19 passengers. The value of the \"Newcastle,\" her cargo and freight, including passage money, are as follows:- \n| Item | Value |\n| --- | --- |\n| The \"Newcastle\" | £3,000 |\n| her cargo | £1,500 |\n| freight and passage money | £65 |\n| In all | £4,565 or $15,000 |\n\nThe Plaintiffs claim-- \n1. The condemnation of the Defendants [and their bail] in such an amount of salvage remuneration as to the Court may seem just, and in the costs of this action.\n\n2. Such further and other relief as the nature of the case may require.\n\nDated the \nday of \n18 \n(Signed) \nA.B. &c., Plaintiffs.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-271 - Governor Sir Robinson - 1896 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 366778, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-283 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [5-6]", "page_number": 187, "title": "CO129-283 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [5-6]", "content_text": "## List of Names\n\n| Name | Rank/Title | Unit/Regiment |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| Malcolm Watson | | |\n| F. D. Gradard | | |\n| Jum Andrew | | |\n| Crate Coheng | | |\n| C.I. Durell | | & West Yahshing |\n| Entsorger | col alt | |\n| Aplettelman | Cap ase | |\n| Anraser | Lilol. Ba | |\n| C.M. Buzzard | fina | |\n| | | BBC |\n| F. Cloud | C.S... | MA. Carey Rient Ra. |\n| H. Elsdale | Colonel | Ch?. |\n| Wendleg. Mage | We | |\n| Charles | a hugent. | Ramby's |\n| Albannerman | Love. | |\n| Mees | all liWW). | C.Mundall Lint RE. |\n| C. F. Gould | Capt. | |\n| C.S. Corstenfel | Mes | Work & Puft |\n| taufatthew | tich. | Wet Barney läft Re |\n| Dr. J. Mullarki | Sefol.C.0.0. | H.I. Laughome Capt |\n| Rd. J. Thompson | Capt | 2.0d. |\n| Heath | ave. | NSWar pravd |\n| Surratt | Souper | Colonel. As |\n| 2. C. Mills | Maju | 16 7 Jesel Brown Sung. Caper. Alles. |\n| W.S. Carey | Capt.. | 115. Morse Regt. |\n| | artron dint | of Worgent ry |\n| Underrat | hieut. | I tilfaboken beh |\n| P.# Johnson | Lig | 2 Col. And |\n| | Capt | |\n| 992 Walton | hud | Surpleptreed |\n| Mich. Whitty | MD. | Surzhapt and |\n| | | The bood died for ynklin Boy. By by age fue Call Aud. |\n| Chi Gondor | \"ght | 14 yostahive Rust Cartufull fled the th |\n| C. Blackburne | Ten Lient | /w York Ret al. Campbell. Land. |\n| H.R.R. Backe | Thien | / Wettartaker los. Fanderein Lunt SXR |\n| | Seant. 1. | / Yorkshire Rat Tellerber & St MR. |\n| A.W. Spruces | Lieut. 1* | W. Yorkshire Ret N. Manila D. &.R. |\n| C. Ryall | Leeind it | W. Gokslininkas |\n| Porry | L. Ingen | Lizat 187.9. Reg! |\n| B. King | Lical. | (W. y.googl |\n| | | se Janion | \n## No other text is present other than names and titles. The list is reconstructed in a table format as shown above.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-283 - Acting Governor Major Gen Black - 1898 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 381348, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9]", "page_number": 60, "title": "CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9]", "content_text": "COPY.\n\nDent.\n\n58\n\nEnclosure to Governor's Despatch No. 305, of the 13th August, 1901,\n\nLetter from Sir John Carrington to His Excellency the Governor.\n\nAddress:- c/o The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, Yokohama.\n\nChasenji, Japan,\n\n31st July, 1901,\n\n2\n\nSir,\n\n5 16 SEP C\n\nI have to ask Your Excellency's consideration of the following matters relating to myself and my office.\n\n2. As Your Excellency is perhaps aware my health has not been good for some time past. In April, 1899, I suffered from a severe attack of gastritis. The same trouble recurred in January, 1900. After these two illnesses my health was not what it was before, and accordingly in the course of last month I asked for and obtained three months' leave of absence. My intention was to proceed to this country and pass the period of leave in the hills, partly with the view of recuperating my health and partly with the view of having leisure to work on a Commission at the new Edition of the Statute Laws of the Colony with which I had been entrusted by the Statute Laws (revised Edition) Ordinance, 1900.\n\n3. Unfortunately I have so far met with ill-success in achieving both these objects. On the 3rd instant, the night before arriving at Yokohama, I was again attacked with gastritis, and, although it soon passed away, I remained weak and delicate until the 18th instant, when the trouble returned in an aggravated form. This time it was accompanied by jaundice. Fortunately Major Whitty, R.A.M.C., is spending his vacation here and he has been most kind and careful in attending to me. I enclose a certificate as to my illness which he has been good enough to write. I will only add that, although I have now entered on the convalescent stage, I am greatly reduced and very weak, and that this state must continue for some time because some weeks at least must elapse before I can partake of any solid or sufficient food.\n\n4. In these circumstances I propose to remain here and try, with the aid of the scenery and climate being of the finest, and my daughter, to nurse myself back to health and strength until it is time for me to return to Hongkong, where I am due to arrive on the 1st October next. But the question which weighs upon my mind and with regard to which I am now addressing Your Excellency is, what is the best thing to be done in the interests both of the service and of myself, when I arrive there?\n\n5. Before leaving Hongkong I made no secret, as I think Your Excellency is aware, of my intention to ask leave to retire on pension on reaching the age of 55 on the 29th May next. But, as the case\n\nPage 60\n\nPage 61", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 381941, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9]", "page_number": 654, "title": "CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9]", "content_text": "651\n\nwww\n\nGO\n\nOur inspection was made at low water ordinary spring tide at 2:57 p.m. We found that the foreshore was exposed to view taking a line from the East boundary of Godowns 23 feet, on the West boundary 22 feet, and some 36 feet in the centre of Godowns (see sketch plan attached). The foreshore consists on the West side of stone, sand and mud; in the centre of stone and sand (here there is a ridge of loose stones extending some distance outwards forming a barrier which we understand was the original filling under the old wharf which has recently been removed) and on the East side almost entirely of fine sand; the Reclamation works commence about 40 feet from this boundary.\n\nOn the West of your Lot is a large drain running under Whitry Street, also a Nallah a little further West, both of which we should imagine would discharge a considerable amount of sand and mud after heavy rains.\n\nBy reference to the Plan it will be seen that the Reclamation works extend outwards 260 feet at right angles from the old Praya, and as the end of works is only 10 feet from your East boundary there is thus a regular pocket formed between these works and the stone barrier before mentioned; that there might have been a certain amount of silting up of the foreshore on the West side of the barrier we can understand, but on the East side the whole foreshore being originally free, the deposit would be naturally carried further along or equally distributed along the whole front, but the Reclamation works have effectually stopped this distribution.\n\nAnd it is our opinion that from the date of the commencement of these works that the foreshore would tend to silt up owing to the effect of the tide eddying in this particular spot and the works themselves must have also caused a large amount of earth stuff to find its way into the sea and thus considerably accelerate the deposit on foreshore.\n\nWe are also of the opinion that any earth, &c. carried into this pocket would naturally be deposited close along the sea-wall, and that there might be no perceptible difference in the depth of the water along the line of the front of the new wall, while there was a very considerable decrease in depth along the old sea-wall for some 20 or 30 feet out.\n\nT. HOWARD, Esq.\n\nNo. 1893.\n\nSIR,\n\nYours faithfully,\n\nPALMER & TURNER,\n\nSurveyors,\n\nCOLONIAL SECRETARY'S OFFICE,\n\nHONGKONG, 17th September, 1895.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge your letter of 30th August, 1895, and the documents therewith submitted, and I am directed to inform you that the evidence in the possession of the Government differs very materially from that which you submit as regards the alleged silting up of the foreshore in front of Marine Lot 184.\n\n67\n\nPage 67\n\nI am further directed to remind you that your position as regards any claim to compensation is defined by section 7 sub-section 6 of Ordinance 16 of 1889 as you are doubtless well aware.\n\nIn the circumstances His Excellency the Governor declines further to discuss the question of compensation until the construction of the Reclamation works actually in front of Marine Lot 184 may enable him to deal with the subject as a whole.\n\nI have the honour to be, Sir,\n\nT. HOWARD, Esq.\n\nSIR,\n\nYour most obedient Servant,\n\nJ. H. STEWART LOCKHART, Colonial Secretary,\n\nHONGKONG, 18th September, 1895.\n\nI have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 17th instant in reply to mine of the 30th ultimo.\n\n1. I presume from the statement in the first paragraph of your letter that the Government has called for reports and obtained evidence as to the state of the foreshore since the date of my last letter. If so, I shall be much obliged if the Government will furnish me with copies of these reports and of that evidence. I cannot either reply to the statement or explain it, or admit that I have no case until I have seen them. Common justice requires that I should have the opportunity of meeting it.\n\n2. As to your second paragraph, I may inform you that our claim is not exclusively under the section and sub-section you refer to, but is under the contract with the Government embodied in the Crown Lease of Marine Lot No. 184.\n\n3. In view of the opinion expressed by the present Chief Justice in the case of Ryrie v. The Attorney General on the 24th November, 1890, that \"the greatest care should be exercised that no injury be inflicted without adequate compensation,\" I cannot acquiesce in the statement that our position as regards compensation is defined by sub-section 6 of section 7 of Ordinance 16 of 1889, which leaves it in the absolute discretion of the Governor to give what he thinks fit to a Crown Lessee whose business may be ruined by his Marine Lot being converted into an Inland Lot.\n\n4. Seeing that His Excellency the Governor refuses to dredge the foreshore, and declines to discuss the question of compensation until the construction of the Reclamation works actually in front of Marine Lot No. 184, I have now to give you notice that we shall hold the Government responsible for loss of rents we may sustain from the 1st proximo.\n\n5. In order, however, to reduce such loss to a minimum, I have to ask if the Government will grant permission, at our own cost, to remove the sand and stones into deep water within the area of the projected Reclamation, to such an extent that boats laden with cargo can be brought up to our frontage at low water, reserving the question of repayment to the period indicated in letter.\n\nYour\n\nI have the honour to be,\n\nThe Honourable J. H. STEWART LOCKHART,\n\nColonial Secretary.\n\nSir,\n\nYour obedient Servant,\n\nTHOS. HOWARD.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-306 - Governor Sir Blake - 1901 [8-9].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 391756, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903", "page_number": 716, "title": "CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903", "content_text": "Single line with side piles.\n\nSheure thus\n\nDouble line with side poles and,\n\nTurnouts for single line.\n\nDouble line with Centre poles\n\nKENNEDY TOWN\n\nFRY NO!\n\nCADOGAN ST\n\nSMITHFIELD\n\nNORTH ST\n\nBERCH ST\n\nHOLLAND ST\n\nSAND ST\n\nWHITTY ST\n\nApproximate Scale of Miles.\n\n3/4\n\n1 MILE\n\nApproximate Scale of Yards.\n\n0 100 200 300\n\n500 1000 circa 900 en Vakoo\n\nFRENCH ST\n\nROAD\n\nH\n\nWESTERNS\n\nCENTRE ST\n\nEASTERN ST\n\nTRAMWAY\n\nQUEEN\n\nN° 2\n\nCITY\n\nHARBOUR\n\nMASTERS\n\nOFFICE\n\nOF\n\nHONG KONG TRAMWAYS.\n\nPROGRESS DIAGRAM.\n\nREFERENCE TO DIAGRAM.\n\nPermanent-Way-under Construction-shewn-thus\n\nPLATELAYING. EXCAVATION\n\nPoles Erected.\n\nPermanent-Way Completed.\n\nA\n\nTrolley Wire Fixed.\n\nGable base\n\nFeeder Pillars Fixed-\n\nP\n\nPEDDARS $1\n\nICE HOUSEST\n\nROAD\n\nQUEENS\n\nROAD\n\nVICTORIA\n\nPraning to 2098,\n\nMILITARY HOSPITAL\n\nARSENALS\n\nB\n\nWANCHAIRD\n\nTRAMWAY\n\n::\n\n\"\n\nJa\n\nPERY 99?\n\n2\n\nTRY NO3-\n\nPOWER\n\nHOUSE\n\nPERCIVAL\n\nCIVAL ST\n\nRACECOURSE\n\nNo 2\n\nCABLE HOUSE\n\nETROPOLE\n\nROAD\n\nTRAMWAY N° 6\n\nCAUSEWAY\n\nBAY\n\nQUARRY\n\nCAUSEWAY RE\n\nTRAMWAY N° 2\n\nNo4 BRIDGE :\n\n9394\n\n709\n\nALFRED DICKINSON & CO.,\n\nConsulting Engineers.\n\nTelephone Buildings,\n\nReference No. 7256.0.\n\nDate Aug 5\" 1902.\n\nBIRMINGHAM.\n\nNEW HAD TO SHAU KI WAN\n\nNo 5 BRIDGE Į\n\nSH AU KI WAN ROAD\n\nTRAMWAY NO 7\n\nPROGRESS Diagram 19.\n\nSHAU KI WAN", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-321 - Public Offices & Others - 1903.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 422965, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-362 - Public Offices - 1909", "page_number": 368, "title": "CO129-362 - Public Offices - 1909", "content_text": "# 366 DOMESTIC.\n\n## fies er Individual privign 1909 6. Sapt\n\nst Previous Paper. 14295 HONG KONG 29881 Canton Kowloon Railway 29881 RECO 7 SEP(\n\nIns copy coves with Sir J. Jordan respecting difficulties on Chinese section owing to possibility of the country people and inaction of magistrates and steps taken to remedy state of affairs\n\nMr Chitty Collins for Modder's mention on 14295.\n\n## Subsequent Paper\n\n| G. | 33408 |\n| --- | --- |\n\nA. & E. W.-`SUN62/27` 23000-11-05 \n## 2 \n\nPatty, j Rz \n\n2 9", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-362 - Public Offices - 1909.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 427820, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-370 - Governor Sir Lugard & Public Offices - 1910 [12]", "page_number": 368, "title": "CO129-370 - Governor Sir Lugard & Public Offices - 1910 [12]", "content_text": "Page 363\n\nSputs\n\n1910\n\n16 June\n\nLast previous Paper.\n\n12482\n\ncoves for 178. 25 June 2\n\n555) WL21,600-X. 10,000.\n\n100. A.&E.W.\n\nt subsequent Paper.\n\nHONG KONG\n\n18437\n\n{Drtsa\n\nCO\n\n18437\n\nRree 17 JUN 10\n\nResignation of Constable S.Prennen\n\nLeuso lettre tendering. Steps are being taken to cancel hannace. Ande\n\nfor restruations\n\nMy Shitty Cons\n\nsay that his\n\n: Ish CA to acupt unigration\n\nall them to get mother\n\nCopy love 2015 20\n\nJR 1871\n\nYou. I think u\n\nSt\n\nthat a\n\nY\n\nwill be required. & it takes\n\nthat with in\n\nso lag opt men\n\nadvisable to not to delay by using of the Tolay 1) 18/6.\n\nmk\n\nAer ...\n\n20\n\nPage 363", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-370 - Governor Sir Lugard & Public Offices - 1910 [12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 437289, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-388 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1912 [1-2]", "page_number": 342, "title": "CO129-388 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1912 [1-2]", "content_text": "Sir,\n\nDRAFT.\n\nNo 81 St Rong\n\none MINUTE.\n\nMr. H.M. len 3713 Mr. Shitty lives 29\n\nSir G. Fiddes.\n\nSir H. Just.\n\nSir J. Anderson.\n\nLord Emmott.\n\nMr. Harcourt.\n\nB\n\nMaveretsach: the Recept of to Sir. 7. Zugard's dep No bo of the an the subiect of 22nd Feb: the privilege of free quarters at present enjoyed by Police Officer at Ithong.\n\nI do not consider that the proposal is just.\n\n2. I agree to the withdrawal of the privilege in future, but this decision can only apply to the cases of officers now serving in the Police Force who are allowed to retain their quarters during their tenure.\n\n...\n\n8190 Itkang 1912 333 O.D. 29MAR 29th March 12\n\nx 裘", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-388 - Governor Sir Lugard - 1912 [1-2].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 437972, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]", "page_number": 178, "title": "CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6]", "content_text": "Lave whaystem refused. 3. Ingst therefore that \n\nI cannot recommend to \n\n...\n\nAAP st \n\nH fon king the M-A7. \n\nappross the grant of the \n\nhtl \n\nthis case. \n\n214 \n\nKen \n\nDate. \n\n1912 \n\nMuy. \n\nHONG KONG \n\n19546 \n\nLear Salary Pension \n\nopm. Res. Melo wen \n\nC. O. \n\n172 \n\n24 JUN 12 \n\nWe contendo that he is \n\nprevious Paper. \n\nat 44/- to the 14 \n\nentitled to the former and to its latter at 3/8 to the #. \n\nGives reasons for thinking he has established his claim. \n\nMr Stable Meis \n\nI think it \n\nthat M'Surn \n\nis \n\nChu \n\nLe \n\nproperly maintained \n\nwitter to the higher sati \n\nrexchange - he has sused under Sart, the whole time & his resignation was at so much resignation is transfer. Tapes with the ONS. \n\nabsequent Paper \n\n1141 \n\nW25,946-17. 40,000. 11/11. A.&E.W. \n\nComens with Mp Surm \n\nAbs \n\nI think it dauttful whether \n\nthe case really \n\nWhitly. \n\n2 \n\nHowever, to better follow the instructions and improve the output:\n\nLeave why system refused. 3. Insist therefore that \n\nI cannot recommend to \n\n...\n\nAAP st \n\nH for king the M-A7. \n\napprove the grant of the \n\nhtl \n\nthis case. \n\nPage 214\n\nKen \n\nDate. \n\n1912 \n\nMay. \n\nHONG KONG \n\n19546 \n\nLear Salary Pension \n\nopm. Res. Melo wen \n\nC. O. \n\n172 \n\n24 JUN 12 \n\nWe contend that he is \n\nprevious Paper. \n\nat 44/- to the 14 \n\nentitled to the former and to its latter at 3/8 to the #. \n\nGives reasons for thinking he has established his claim. \n\nMr Stable Meis \n\nI think it \n\nthat M'Surn \n\nis \n\nChu \n\nLe \n\nproperly maintained \n\nwith the higher rate \n\nexchange - he has served under Sart, the whole time & his resignation was at so much resignation is transfer. Tapes with the ONS. \n\nsubsequent Paper \n\n1141 \n\nW25,946-17. 40,000. 11/11. A.&E.W. \n\nComens with Mp Surm \n\nAbs \n\nI think it doubtful whether \n\nthe case really \n\nWhitly. \n\n2 \n\nLet's reformat it according to the rules and directly output the corrected version in HTML as requested:\n\nLeave why system refused. 3. Insist therefore that \n\nI cannot recommend to \n\n...\n\nAAP st \n\nH for king the M-A7. \n\napprove the grant of the \n\nthis case.\n\nKen\n\nDate.\n\n1912\n\nMay.\n\nHONG KONG\n\n19546\n\nLear Salary Pension\n\nC. O. 172\n\n24 JUN 12\n\nWe contend that he is\n\nentitled to the former rate and to the latter rate.\n\nGives reasons for thinking he has established his claim.\n\nMr Stable Meis\n\nI think that M'Surn is properly maintained with the higher rate of exchange.\n\nsubsequent Paper 1141\n\nW25,946-17. 40,000. 11/11. A.&E.W.\n\nI think it doubtful whether the case really...\n\n2\n\nHere is the final output in HTML format as requested:\n\nLeave why system refused. 3. Insist therefore that \n\nI cannot recommend to \n\n...\n\nAAP st \n\nH for king the M-A7. \n\napprove the grant of the \n\nthis case.\n\nPage 214\n\nKen\n\nDate.\n\n1912\n\nMay.\n\nHONG KONG\n\n19546\n\nLear Salary Pension\n\nC. O. 172\n\n24 JUN 12\n\nWe contend that he is\n\nentitled to the former rate and to the latter rate.\n\nGives reasons for thinking he has established his claim.\n\nMr Stable Meis\n\nI think that M'Surn is properly maintained with the higher rate of exchange.\n\nsubsequent Paper 1141\n\nW25,946-17. 40,000. 11/11. A.&E.W.\n\nI think it doubtful whether the case really...\n\n2\n\nPage 215", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-390 - Acting Governor Claud Severn - 1912 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 458360, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "page_number": 453, "title": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "content_text": "55533\n\nREC\n\nREG DECIS\n\nALIENS RESTRICTION ORDER.\n\nLIST OF\n\nPROHIBITED AREAS.\n\nThe following areas are prohibited areas in England: -\n\nCHESHIRE.\n\nCounty Boroughs.-Birkenhead: Chester: Wallasey.\n\nUrban Districts.-Bromborough: Ellesmere Port and Whitby: Higher Bebington: Hoole; Hoylake and West Kirby: Lower Bebington: Neston and Parkgate: Runcorn.\n\nRural Districts.-Chester (Civil Parishes of Bache, Backford, Blacon cum Crabwall, Bridge Trafford, Capenhurst, Caughall, Chorlton by Backford, Croughton, Dunham-on-the-Hill, Elton, Great Saughall, Hapsford, Hoole Village, Ince, Lea by Backford, Little Saughall, Little Stanney, Mickle Trafford, Mollington, Moston, Newton-by-Chester, Picton, Shotwick, Shotwick Park, Stoke, Thornton-le-Moors, Upton-upon-Chester, Wervin, Wimbolds Trafford, and Woodbank only): Runcorn (Civil Parishes of Acton Grange, Antrobus, Appleton, Bartington, Crowley, Daresbury, Dutton, Grappenhall, Great Budworth, Hatton, Higher Whitley, Keckwick, Latchford Without, Lower Whitley, Moore, Newton-by-Daresbury, Preston-on-the-Hill, Seven Oaks, Stockham, Stockton Heath, Stretton, Thelwall, Walton Inferior, Walton Superior, Aston-by-Sutton, Aston Grange, Clifton, Halton, Norton, Sutton, and Weston only): Wirral.\n\nCORN WALL.\n\nMunicipal Boroughs.-Falmouth: Helston: Penryn: Penzance: St. Ives:\n\nSaltash Truro.\n\nUrban Districts.-Camborne: Hayle: Ludgvan: Madron: Paul: Phillack:\n\nRedruth: St. Just: Torpoint.\n\nRural Districts.-East Kerrier: Helston: Redruth: St. Germans: Truro:\n\nWest Penwith.\n\nLONDON:\n\nPRINTED UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE\n\nBy DARLING AND SON, LIMITED, BACON STREET, E.\n\nTo be purchased, either directly or through any Bookseller, from WYMAN AND SONS, LIMITED, 29, BREAM'S BUILDINGS, FITTER LANE, E.C., and 64, ST. MARY STREET, CARDIFF; or\n\nH.M. STATIONERY OFFICE (Scottish Branch),\n\n29, FORTH STREET, EDINBURGH; or\n\nE. PONSONBY, LIMITED, 116, GRAFTON STREET, DUBLIN;\n\nor from the Agencies in the British Colonies and Dependencies, the United States of America and other Foreign Countries of T. FISHER UNWIN, LIMITED, LONDON, W.C.\n\n1915.\n\nPrice One Penny.\n\n449", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 458362, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "page_number": 455, "title": "CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915", "content_text": "NORTHUMBERLAND continued.\n\nRural Districts.-Alnwick: Belford: Castle Ward: Glendale: Hexham-- (Civil Parishes of Bearl, Brumbaugh, Broomley, Bywell, Daker-shagg, Espershields, Healey, Hedley, High Fotherley, Horeley, Nafferton, Newlands, Newton, Newton Hall, Ovingham, Ovington Riding, Shotley High Quarter, Shotley Low Quarter, Spital, Stelling, Styford, Welton, Whittle, Whittonstall, and Wylam only): Norham and Islandshires: Morpeth: Rothbury.\n\nSOMERSET.\n\nUrban Districts.-Burnham: Clevedon: Highbridge: Portishead: Weston-super-Mare.\n\nRural Districts.-Axbridge: Clutton (except the Parishes of Chilcompton, Farrington Gurney, and Stone Easton): Keynsham: Long Ashton.\n\nThornaby-on-Tees.\n\nSUFFOLK.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nSURREY.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nYORKSHIRE.\n\nand\n\nCounty Boroughs.-Kingston-upon-Hull: Middlesbrough. Municipal Boroughs.-Beverley: Bridlington: Hedon: Scarborough: Urban Districts.-Cottingham: Eston: Filey: Great Driffield: Guisborough: Hessle: Hinderwell: Hornsea: Loftus: Malton: Norton: Pickering: Redcar: Saltburn-by-the-Sea: Scalby: Skelton and Brotton: South Bank in Normanby: Whitby: Withernsea. Rural Districts.-Beverley: Bridlington: Driffield: Guisborough: Kirkby Moorside: Malton: Middlesbrough: Norton: Patrington: Pickering: Scarborough: Sculcoates: Sherburn; Skirlaugh: Stokesley: Whitby.\n\nThe following areas are prohibited areas in Wales:-\n\nGLAMORGANSHIRE.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nPEMBROKESHIRE.\n\nMunicipal Boroughs.-Haverfordwest: Pembroke: Tenby. Urban Districts.-Fishguard: Milford Haven: Narberth: Neyland. Rural Districts.-Haverfordwest: Narberth: Pembroke.\n\nThe following areas are prohibited areas in Scotland:-\n\nABERDEENSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Aberdeen: Aberdour: Auchterless: Belhelvie: Cairney: Crimond: Cruden: Culsalmond: Daviot: Drumblade: Drumoak: Dyce: Echt: Ellon: Fintray: Forgue: Fovoran: Fraserburgh: Fyvie: Glass: Huntly: Insch: Kinnellar: King Edward: Kinnethmont: Logie Buchan: Longside: Lonmay: Methlick: Monquhitter: New Deer: Newhills: New Machar: Old Deer: Old Machar: Peterculter: Peterhead: Pitsligo: Rathen: Rayne: St. Fergus: Skene: Slains: Strichen: Tarves: Turriff: Tyrie: Udny.\n\nARGYLLSHIRE.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nPage 5\n\nAYRSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Ardrossan: Ayr: Beith: Coylton: Craigie: Dailly: Dalrymple: Dreghorn: Dundonald: Dunlop: Fenwick: Irvine: Kilbirnie: Kilmarnock: Kilmaurs: Kilwinning: Largs: Mauchline: Maybole: Monkton and Prestwick: Ochiltree: Riccarton: Stair: Stevenston: Stewarton: Symington: Tarbolton: West Kilbride.\n\nBANFFSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Alvah: Banff: Boharm: Botriphnie: Boyndie: Cullen: Deskford: Fordyce: Forglen: Gamrie: Grange: Inverkeithny: Keith: Marnoch: Ordiquhill: Rathven: Rothiemay.\n\nBERWICKSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Abbey St. Bathans: Ayton: Bunkle and Preston: Chirnside: Cockburnspath: Coldingham: Coldstream: Cranshaws: Duns: Eccles: Edrom: Eyemouth: Fogo: Fouldea: Greenlaw: Hutton: Ladykirk: Langton: Longformacus: Mordington: Polwarth: Swinton: Whitsome.\n\nBUTESHIRE.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nCAITHNESS-SHIRE.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nDUMBARTONSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Arrochar: Bonhill: Cardross: Dumbarton: Kilmarnock: Luss: New Kilpatrick: Old Kilpatrick: Roseneath: Row.\n\nEDINBURGHSHIRE (MID-LOTHIAN).\n\nParishes.-Borthwick: Carrington: Cockpen: Colinton: Corstorphine: Cramond: Cranston: Crichton: Currie: Dalkeith: Edinburgh: Fala: Glencorse: Inveresk: Kirknewton: Lasswade: Leith: Liberton: Mid Calder: Newbattle: Newton: Penicuik: Ratho: Temple: West Calder.\n\nELGINSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Alves: Bellie: Birnie: Dallas: Drainie: Duffus: Dyke and Moy: Edinkillie: Elgin: Forres: Kinloss: New Spynie: Rafford: Rothes: St. Andrews: Lhanbryde: Speymouth: Urquhart.\n\nFIFESHIRE.\n\nThe whole county.\n\nFORFARSHIRE.\n\nParishes.-Arbirlot: Arbroath and St. Vigeans: Auchterhouse: Barry: Brechin: Carmylie: Craig: Dun: Dundee Combination: Dunnichen: Eassie and Nevay: Farnell: Forfar: Fowlis-Easter: Glamis: Guthrie: Inverarity: Inverkeillor: Kettins: Kinnell: Kinnettles: Kirkden: Liff and Benvie: Logie Pert: Lunan: Lundie: Mains and Strathmartine: Marytown: Monifieth: Monikie: Montrose: Murroes: Newtyle: Panbride: Tealing.\n\nPage 4\n\nPage 5\n\nPage 5", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-428 - Public Offices - 1915.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 482312, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "page_number": 360, "title": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "content_text": "347\n\nTHE PREROGATIVE POWERS. The Prerogative powers claimed could only compel rights of the kind existed at common law had. The answer of the suppliants to the claim made under the Prerogative was, first, that whatever (if any) rights were in question should have been abrogated by modern legislation. Reliance was placed upon a series of enactments, temporary and permanent, enacted at intervals from 4 Henry VIII to 38 George III, and, among others, the Defence Act, 1842 to 1875, but more particularly the Defence Act, 1843. The jurisdiction of the Court was no greater than it was in the 17th century. Four things had to be ascertained—namely, the true state of facts as to the alleged agreement; the rights of the Crown, if any; whether the rights of the Crown were not taken to be abated by the statute unless the intention of the Legislature to that effect was clear and unmistakable (see per Lord Lindley in Wheaton v. Maple (1894) 3 Ch. 48, at p. 64), Coomber v. Berkshire Justices (1883) 9 App. Cas. 61, at p. 76), and per Mr. Justice Day in Gorton Local Board v. Prison Commissioners (1904) 2 K.B. 165, at p. 187). That the temporary statutes could be cited in the language of the Defence Act, 1842, to suggest that the premises were being occupied by the Government under an agreement between the Crown and the suppliants was impossible. And there was nothing to suggest any intention to deprive the Crown of any of its common law powers.\n\nTHE STATUTORY POWERS.\n\nHis Lordship said that the contention with regard to the Royal Prerogative seemed to him to be unsustainable; he proceeded to deal with the Crown's argument for the Crown was in effect that at law there was in the Crown the duty of defending the realm, that this duty carried with it all necessary rights for the doing of things incident to the performance of that duty. The Attorney-General justified the possession complained of, not only by the Royal Prerogative, but also by the powers conferred by the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, and the regulations thereunder. The effect of section 1 of the Act was considered in R. v. Halliday (1917) A.C. 200, dealing not with rights of property but with the liberty of the subject, and it was held that the powers reposed in the Crown by the section must be exercised honestly, but there was no other limit upon the acts authorized by the regulations made thereunder (see per Lord Wrenbury in R. v. Halliday, A.C., at p. 307). Regulation 2 made it lawful for the competent naval or military authority to authorize the taking possession of land wherever military necessity required it. As to legality, it was said for the Crown that Parliamentary occupation for defence was not within the prohibition of Magna Carta. As to necessity, it was contended that the Sovereign was constitutionally the arbiter.\n\nThe common law duty of the Sovereign to defend the realm appeared clearly from Hampden's case (3 Howell's State Trials, 825). The right of the Crown to enter upon lands of a subject for purposes of public defence was affirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Judges given consultatively to the Crown in the case of Saltpetre (12 Co. Rep. 13). The Judges in Hampden's case (the case of ship money), although divided as to the matter immediately to be decided, were unanimous on questions which were material here. Thus Mr. Justice Crooke, whose opinion was adverse to the Crown's claim, said (3 Howell's State Trials, at p. 1134), in discussing the Prerogative:—\n\n\"The law provides a remedy in case of necessity and danger, for then the King may command his subjects without Parliament to defend the kingdom. How? By all men of arms whatsoever, for the land; and by all ships whatsoever, for the sea, which he may take for his Navy, which hath been the practice of all former kings.\"\n\nHis Lordship then referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Hulton on the argument of Mr. St. John in the same case, and said that one of the grounds on which Hampden's resistance to ship money was based by Mr. St. John was the existence of the many Prerogatives which the law hath settled in the Crown for the defence of the kingdom.\" A right to summon all subjects to defend the realm by personal service—Foster, 157, 158, and Co. Litt. 75, 76; the power of the Sovereign to issue commissions for the impressment of ships and men for the Navy; and the power to erect fortifications (Comyns' Digest, Tit. Prerogative) had been considered clear instances of Prerogative rights which existed at common law.\n\nThe right to enter upon land within the realm as and when military defence required it was claimed in this case as such a right; and it was said to be exemplified in the decisions of various Courts of Law, which were cited in re a Petition of Right (31 The Times L.R. 596; (1915) K.B. 649) with regard to the raising of bulwarks to repel invasion.\n\nIt was said that where it was necessary for the public safety or the defence of the realm, it was lawful (a) to take and (b) to take possession of any land, and that the possession of any land, suppliants had not challenged the action of the Government was founded on the ground of absence of power given by the regulation to cases where, for the purpose of securing the public safety or the defence of the realm, it was necessary; and it was said that possession without compensation could never be of compensation, and the test of necessity was inconceivable. The answer was that the words had no relation to the question testably established.\n\nTHE SUBJECT AND THE CROWN.\n\nHis Lordship then referred to the absence of reported cases of litigation between the subject and the Crown in this connexion and of records of payments or other admissions of liability by the Crown, and said that the records seemed to him not to support the suppliants' case, but rather to tend to destroy it. The cases between subjects in which the plea of necessity in time of war for public defence was raised in early times in actions of trespass were fairly numerous. In the Year-book 8 Edward IV, 11, 41, a custom in Kent \"when the enemy come to the Coast to enter upon land adjoining the same coast in defence and safeguard of the realm and then to make there trenches and bulwarks for the defence of the realm was held to be well pleaded. In the Year-book 27 Henry VIII, T. 276, the entry upon land in time of war to make bulwarks in defence of the realm was held to be justifiable as a thing necessary for the Commonwealth, though otherwise illegal.\" In 14 Henry VIII, pl. 18, the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas was recorded to the effect that suburbs might be pulled down in time of war \"pur ceo que ceo est pur le Commonwealth\". This alleged right was confirmed in Chitty on the Prerogative.\n\nThe case of Saltpetre (supra) declared the opinion of all the Judges in 1607 that there was in the Crown a right of entry on all lands for a purpose essential for defence, though the purpose originated within the time of legal memory.\n\nIn his Lordship's opinion, the law was before the Defence Acts, and now was, that in case of necessity for public defence the Crown might of right enter upon the land of the subject and might remain in occupation while the necessity continued. So decided in re a Petition of Right (supra), and the observations of Lord Parker in the Zamora (32 The Times L.R. 526; (1916) A.C. 77) indicated the concurrence of the noble and learned lord in that view.\n\nIt was said that the reflections naturally provoked by insistence upon prerogative rights at a time when most of the relations of the subject with the Crown had for centuries been determined by statute. That consideration related, however, to public policy and not to legal rights.\n\nAny restriction of the powers of the Executive Government in times of public peril was properly subjected to careful scrutiny. Powers which under conditions of personal autocracy might be regarded as invidious, might under modern conditions be not only valuable, but essential to prevent an oppressive exercise of such powers by the Executive.\n\nParliament was well aware of this.\n\nTHE POSITION OF THE HIGH COURT.\n\nHis Lordship, continuing, said that he proposed to consider what were the powers of the High Court of Justice in respect of demands made against the Crown by petition of right. This process was available to the subject for the recovery of real or personal property which was wrongfully in the possession of the Crown, and for obtaining judicial authority for payment out of the Exchequer of money due upon contractual obligations of the Crown.\n\nAs to the former class, Chief Justice Holt pointed out in the Bankers' case (14 Howell's State Trials at p. 34) that the function of a petition of right was \"to destroy the King's title.\" As to the second class, the decision of the House of Lords in the Bankers' case (L.R. 10, Q.B. 31) established the authority of English Courts of law to examine upon petition of right claims of the subject against the Crown provided they arose out of contracts.\n\nBeyond these two classes of cases, the jurisdiction of the Courts upon petition of right did not extend.\n\nSpeaking generally, the long series of enactments from the Statute of Westminster the Second (13 Edward I, c. 24) to the Judicature Acts did not give any rights to the subject against the Crown. The amendments made by the Petition of Right Act, 1860, were amendments of procedure only.\n\nIn the present case, the suppliants were not proceeding under the petition of right for the recovery of property. They sought to recover payment of a debt upon one or other of the grounds of claim on which they relied. The claim of the suppliants for money due for use and occupation was rightly disallowed by the learned Judge at the trial. Agreement for such a payment could not be implied when the occupation had been against the will of the claimant or when the circumstances were inconsistent with a contract for payment (see Churchward v. R. (1865) H. & N. 446) and Sloper v. Saunders (1850) 20 L.J. Ex. 278).\n\nThe claim of the suppliants that an entry upon land in the exercise of the Prerogative gave a right to compensation was not supported by reference to any authority, but was said to be warranted by the past practice.\n\nPage 360\n\nPage 361", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 482323, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "page_number": 371, "title": "CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919", "content_text": "possible. I pause to add that on the principle laid down in Thomas v. Reg., Law Reports, 10, Queen's Bench, page 31, upon the authority of The Bankers Case (Howell, 5 Mod. Skinner), an affirmative finding upon the suppliants' allegation of an agreement between them and the Crown would have entitled them to the judgment of the Court, and that my ultimate opinion upon their appeal depends in the first place upon the fact that there was no such agreement.\n\nThe right of the Crown to occupy the suppliants' premises for necessary purposes of public defence in time of war was based by the Attorney-General upon the royal prerogative, and, alternatively, upon the Defence of the Realm (Consolidation) Act, 1914, and the Defence of the Realm Regulations. The ground of prerogative was the ground most elaborately discussed before us. The argument for the Crown was in effect that at common law there is in the Sovereign the duty of defending the realm, that this duty carries with it all necessary rights for the doing of things incident to the performance of the duty, so far as they are not unlawful, and that one of these incidental things is the occupation of land whenever military necessity so requires. As to legality, it was said for the Crown that temporary occupation for defence is not a disseisin within the prohibition of Magna Charta. As to necessity, it was contended that the Sovereign is constitutionally the arbiter. The common law duty of the Sovereign to defend the realm appears clearly in the arguments and judgment in Hampden's Case (Howell's State Trials, volume 3, page 826) in the Case of Shipmoney. The right of the Crown to enter upon lands of a subject for purposes of public defence was affirmed by the unanimous opinion of the Judges, given consultatively to the Crown in the Case of Mr. St. John's argument against Saltpetre. 12 The Reports, page 13.\n\n\"the Crown in the Case of Shipmoney throws a clear light upon the class of questions here under discussion, and the Judges there, although they were divided as to the matter which was immediately to be decided, were unanimous as to certain questions which are material to the present case. I shall refer only to the judgments of two of the Judges whose opinions were given adversely to the claim of the Crown. Mr. Justice Crooke said in discussing the prerogative: \"The law provides a remedy in case of necessity and danger, for then the King may command his subjects without Parliament to defend the kingdom.\" \"How? By all men of war whatsoever for the land, and by all ships whatsoever for the sea, which he may take from all parts of the kingdom and join them with his own Navy, which hath been the practice of all former kings.\" Mr. Justice Hutton said: “The King is bound to defend the kingdom.\" Mr. St. John for the defendant had said, \"It must needs be granted that in the business of defence the suprema potestas is inherent in His Majesty. Neither hath the law only entrusted the care of defence to His Majesty, but it hath likewise put the summa potestas and means of defence wholly into his hands\n\nNeither is His Majesty armed only with his primitive prerogative of generalissimo and commander-in-chief, but also with all other powers requisite for the full execution of all things incident to so high a place as well in times of danger as of actual war.” One of the grounds on which Hampden's resistance to shipmoney was based by Mr. St. John was the existence of \"the many prerogatives which the law hath settled in the Crown for the defence of the kingdom.\" A right to summon all subjects to defend the realm by personal service; Foster, 157, 158, Fitzherbert, Nat. Prov. Coke on Litt. 75, 76; the power of the subject to issue commissions of array, Parliament Rolls, 2 Rush 1229; power of impressment of ships and men for the Navy, Chitty, cap. lv, Selden Mare Clausum, cap. xx.; 1 Blackstone, cap. 419; 51 R. 276; and the exclusive authority to erect fortifications (Comyn's Digest: Prerogative), have been considered clear instances of prerogative rights which existed at common law. The right to enter upon lands within the realm, as and when military defence requires it, is claimed in this case as such a right, and is said to be exemplified in the decision of various courts of law, which were cited in the Shoreham Case with regard to the raising of bulwarks to repel invasion. As was pointed out for the Appellants, these were all decisions in litigation between subjects and not express determination as to the rights of the Sovereign. Litigation upon such a question as between the subject and the Crown could hardly occur. The subject would not be likely to ask or get the royal fiat for a petition of right, and the Sovereign, obstructed in what he deemed the necessary defence of the realm, would probably not resort to a prosecution for misdemeanour. The absence of legal records was relied upon by the suppliants as proof of non-existence of the alleged right. It is true that the Year Books, the more modern Reports, the Parliament Rolls, and the public accounts show no trace of a previous occurrence of such a controversy as this. It is equally true that, within the time of legal memory, armies arrayed under the authority of the Crown have repeatedly occupied large areas of land in all parts of the country to the exclusion, for longer or shorter periods of time, of the owners of the land. There are no records of complaints by action at law, or, so far as I know, by petition to the Crown, or by parliamentary protest, and the searches made by the parties in the Record Office produced no proofs of payment except for lands purchased or rented under statutory powers or by agreement. On the whole, the absence of decided cases and of records of payments or other admissions of liability by the Crown seems to me not to support the suppliants' case in this regard, but rather to tend to destroy it. The cases between subjects in which the plea of necessity in time of war for public defence was successfully raised in early times in actions of trespass are fairly numerous. In 8 Edward IV. a custom in Kent, when the enemy came to the coast, to enter upon land adjoining the same coast in defence and safeguard of the realm, and then to make there trenches and bulwark; for the defence of the realm, was held to be well pleaded. In 21 Henry VII. entry upon land in time of war, \"pur faire bulwarke in defence du Roy et le Realm,\" was held to be justifiable as a thing necessary for the commonwealth though otherwise illegal.\" In 1 Henry VIII. the opinion of the Court of Common Pleas is recorded to the effect that suburbs of cities seront plucked down in temps de guerre; pur ceo que ceo est pur le commonwealth chescun poit faire sans aver action. This alleged right is affirmed in Chitty on the Prerogative. The Case of Saltpetre declares the opinion of all the judges in 1607 that there is in the Crown a right of entry on all lands for a purpose essential for defence, though the purpose originate within the time of legal memory. That is to say, the right is not limited to cases in which it has from time to time been exercised. Not the nature of the user, but the fact of necessity, is the decisive consideration which governs the right. In my opinion the law was before the Defence Acts, and now is that, in case of necessity for public defence, the Crown may, of right, enter upon the land of the subject, and may remain in occupation while the necessity continues. This Court so decided in the Shoreham Case, and I think that the observations of Lord Parker in the Zamara indicate the concurrence of the noble and learned Lord in the view of the law expressed in that decision.\n\nThe answer of the suppliants to the claim made under the prerogative was, firstly, that whatever rights of the kind in question existed at common law—not admitting them—such rights have been abrogated by modern legislation. Reliance was placed upon a series of enactments, temporary measures enacted at intervals in the period from 1 Henry VIII. to\n\nPage 358", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-458 - Public Offices & Others - 1919.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 497052, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-483 - Others & Individuals - 1923", "page_number": 298, "title": "CO129-483 - Others & Individuals - 1923", "content_text": "# \nJ.M. Delwingue.\n\n**CIRCULATION:** \n\nTo the Government of HONG KONG, HONG KONG.\n\n**DATE:** 12th April.\n\n**SUBJECT:** Opium requirements of 1st. quarter 1924.\n\nStates that it is very desirable that the information be furnished as soon as possible to the L/N.\n\nRecommends that sub-rule 20 of the draft rules be deleted, and that the Registrar of the Supreme Court be directed to follow the practice which, as Sir I. Willes Chitty indicates, will be adopted in the Central Office of the Supreme Court in this connection.\n\n**Distribution:**\n\n* Mr. Grindle\n* Sir H. Lambert\n* Sir H. Read\n* Sir J. Masterton Smith\n* Mr. Wood\n\n(Signed) DELVOISAIR\n\n**Previous Paper:** `16880/23`.\n\n## MINUTES\n\nI have referred to the Gui's despatch (`16880/23`); I will write about it later. I have given a short history of this controversy.\n\nIt is a point of some importance. We may get references from General Daming Day which may be useful.\n\nThe Secretary is telling each department to inform the L/N whether they are being asked to supply information to the League.\n\nYou will see that the application subsequent to this is `13553/24`.\n\n**Subsequent Paper:** `13553/24`.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-483 - Others & Individuals - 1923.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 549395, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "page_number": 38, "title": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "content_text": "45\n\n20\n\nAPPENDIX “E.”\n\nAppertaining to Paragraph No. 20 of the Memorial.\n\nSeparate Memorandum\n\nCOVERING YOUR PETITIONER'S PROTESTS TO GOVERNMENT AT THE 1928 DEVELOPMENT, AND RELATIVE INTERVIEWS; SUBSEQUENT SANCTION OF ALTERNATIVE ROUTES CONFINED TO ITS OWN TRAM TRACK, YOUR PETITIONER'S PETITION TO H.E. THE GOVERNOR AT THAT JUNCTURE; AND, NEGOTIATIONS RESULTING IN THE HOTEL COMPANY'S EVENTUAL OFFER TO DISPOSE OF THEIR POWERS TO YOUR PETITIONER.\n\nIn view of certain disquieting rumours that other interests were endeavouring to obtain permission to operate motor buses along the specific routes of your Petitioner's application of 1925, your Petitioner's General Manager, Mr. L. C. F. Bellamy, on 31st December, 1927, saw the Hon. Mr. E. R. Hallifax, then the Acting Colonial Secretary who, however, stated that he knew nothing about the matter and referred Mr. Bellamy to the Hon. Mr. E. D. C. Wolfe, the then Captain Superintendent of Police with whom, on that day (31st December, 1927) an important interview took place. From that interview it was clear that this extremely valuable bus route (which, for brevity, was then referred to as the \"Queen's Road route\" and is now the No. 5 motor bus route) was to be allotted to the Hong Kong & Shanghai Hotels, Ltd.\n\nThis interview was followed by your Petitioner's initial protest of 3rd January, 1928, by letter addressed to the Captain Superintendent of Police (see Enclosure No. 1).\n\nYour Petitioner grew alarmed at the attitude displayed by the Police and the way in which matters appeared to be pointing, especially as Government a few weeks earlier in an amendment of the Vehicles and Traffic Regulation Ordinance had, by revoking a then existing Regulation, clothed itself with powers to grant licences for operating motor bus services without first calling for tenders (Regulation No. 689 of Gazette 17th November, 1927).\n\nAs a measure of defence your Petitioner consequently applied to Government for authority to operate motor buses over any or all of its tramway routes.\n\nFurther, on 24th February, 1928—through the Captain Superintendent of Police your Petitioner repeated as a third official application its two previous applications of 1925 and 1927 for operating the \"Queen's Road\" motor bus route and announced the intention of ordering immediately six 25-seater buses with which they would operate a first-class passenger service \"on such route or routes\" as might be agreed with the Government (see Enclosure No. 2).\n\nAn extract from Mr. Wolfe's reply (Enclosure No. 3 hereof) to that letter reads:— \"I wish it to be understood that any orders you give for buses are given entirely on your own initiative and that so far as I am concerned you are in no way authorised to put them on the streets of Hong Kong at present.\"\n\n21\n\nSubsequently, however, and simultaneously with the grant of the exclusive \"Queen's Road\" rights to the Hong Kong & Shanghai Hotels Ltd. your Petitioner was authorised to operate a bus service (first-class fares only) over its tramway routes and two routes were chosen. One, which is now the No. 1 (Happy Valley) Route, and the other, the No. 2 (Taikoo) Route. It is now realized that if Petitioner had not elected to place motor buses on these tramway routes that such services would not have been included in Schedule \"A\" of Government Notification No. S. 319 of 2nd September, 1932.\n\nThe Hotel Company commenced operating the \"Queen's Road\" bus service on October 15th, 1928, and were promptly granted two important extensions:— (1) from Causeway Bay to Tai Hang Village on 10th November, 1928 and (2) from Whitty Street to Kennedy Town on 3rd December, 1928. These extensions resulted in almost another mile being added to the area of bus and tram competition.\n\nIn the meantime and thereafter your Petitioner continued to press the main issue of complaint, namely, the question of the \"Queen's Road\" concession.\n\nFrom the letter dated 14th March, 1929 (Enclosure No. 4) from your Petitioner's General Manager to Hon. the Colonial Secretary and the replies thereto dated 17th June and 31st July, 1929 (Enclosures Nos. 5 and 6) will be seen that Government completely evaded your Petitioner's request for an explanation as to how it came about that repeated applications by your Petitioner to operate the \"Queen's Road\" bus service were ignored.\n\nIt will be observed that no reply to your Petitioner's letter of 14th March, 1929, having been received, your Petitioner on 11th June again wrote to the Colonial Secretary and asked that they might receive a reply. Such reply (dated July 31st, 1929) four-and-a-half months after your Petitioner's first letter—as already stated, made no reference whatever to the crucial enquiry contained in the first paragraph of your Petitioner's letter of March 14th.\n\nIn nearly every other electric tramway system in the world there are routes radiating from some part (generally the centre) of the town and bus competition along one of these routes might not seriously affect the financial stability of the Tramway undertaking.\n\nIn the case of the Island of Hong Kong, however, there is only one main tramway route (from East to West). Parallel and very close to this are Queen's Road East, Queen's Road Central and Queen's Road West. Your Petitioner, however, was required to lay its track only partly in Queen's Road.\n\nThus to give motor bus rights throughout the whole length of Queen's Road to such a competing company was an exceedingly serious matter for your Petitioner. Action, in fact, could only be regarded as reasonable if it were compatible with your Petitioner having refused to supplement its tramways along Des Voeux Road etc. by a motor bus service in Queen's Road.\n\nIn the face of such entirely unsympathetic response to all representations it seemed impossible for your Petitioner to obtain the slightest official cognizance of its protests through ordinary channels.\n\nAccordingly, it was resolved to place before the Governor, His Excellency Sir Cecil Clementi, the Petition lodged on the 16th December, 1929 (reproduced as Enclosure No. 7 of this Appendix).\n\n46", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 549398, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "page_number": 41, "title": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "content_text": "57\n\n20\n\n27\n\nNOTES REFERRED TO IN ENCLOSURE NO. (1.)\n\nHong Kong Tramways, Limited.\n\nPROPOSED MOTOR BUS SERVICE ALONG QUEEN'S ROAD. INTERVIEW WITH THE CAPTAIN SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE.\n\n1. I had a long interview with Mr. Wolfe on December 31st last on the question of motor bus operation.\n\n2. It appears that although we were informed by the Government nearly three years ago that motor buses would not be allowed along Queen's Road, the attitude of the Government has suddenly changed, and not only will motor buses now be allowed along Queen's Road, but the Government is anxious to come to an arrangement with some company which is prepared to operate a service from Causeway Bay to Whitty Street by Caroline Road, Queen's Road East, Queen's Road Central, and Queen's Road West.\n\n3. It appears that Mr. Taggart is anxious to create a new motor bus company in Hong Kong with the object, inter alia, of operating this motor bus service parallel to the tramways. I told Mr. Wolfe that the offer contained in our letter to the Colonial Secretary dated the 12th February, 1925, still held good, and that we were both willing and anxious to run this service.\n\n4. I further pointed out that although, admittedly, the Hong Kong Hotels, Ltd., introduced motor buses into the Colony, this was done as a legitimate branch of the Hotel business for the purpose of conveying passengers between the two principal hotels on the island; our Company started in passenger transport in Hong Kong (and on a much larger scale than Mr. Taggart) as far back as 1904.\n\n5. Mr. Wolfe is anxious to be fair to all parties, and he asked me whether we would object to Mr. Taggart undertaking the Queen's Road motor bus service if we were granted a quid pro quo in the shape of an undertaking by the Government to allow us to take over the Kowloon buses in perhaps two years' time.\n\n6. Although this sounds attractive, it is necessary to bear in mind that the Government is opposed to and will not grant a monopoly, and the best we could hope from the Kowloon offer would be that none of the three companies at present operating in Kowloon would have any of their licences renewed after, say, January, 1930. Even then, I imagine we would be expected to either compensate these companies or take over their vehicles at an enhanced figure. I say enhanced figure because, although we might not pay more for each individual bus than its then market value, the aggregate amount would be far more than this heterogeneous collection of different makes would be worth to an operating company wishing to standardize on a modern fleet comprising vehicles of the most suitable make and design.\n\nThere is another most important feature which occurred to me and which contributed to my inability to give Mr. Wolfe an affirmative answer to his question regarding this quid pro quo. It is as follows:-\n\n7. Some motor buses I saw at the Commercial Motor Show in London seat 72 passengers, and although Mr. Taggart's intention, if he is granted the Queen's Road concession, is to run buses seating less than half this number, he would, as an enterprising man, naturally introduce larger vehicles as time went on and as traffic developed; and although in the first year or two he might not compete with the Tramway Company to any serious extent, I am quite certain that in a few years' time, especially if petrol drops considerably in price or a cheaper form of fuel becomes general, the small buses would be superseded by double-deck six-wheelers equalling or exceeding in seating capacity our present tramcars.\n\n8. I asked Mr. Wolfe whether, since he felt he must do something for Mr. Taggart, he had considered working the other way round and giving the Queen's Road concession to the Tramway Company and the 1930 Kowloon promise to Mr. Taggart. He said he had not, but asked whether we would consider that. I told him that, although a reply to such a question would necessarily have to come from the Board, for my own part, I would say a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, and that I would rather operate the Queen's Road service now than accept some promise for the misty future, which, however sincere and well-intentioned to-day, might prove much less substantial in a few years' time when, perhaps, the present Governor and Mr. Bernard and even Mr. Wolfe himself may have left the Colony.\n\n9. Again, it ought to be borne in mind that one of our reasons for applying to the Government three years ago for permission to operate motor vehicles along Queen's Road (particularly Queen's Road East) was due to the Government having notified us that our track along Praya East was to be moved north a considerable distance. We realised then that any person, say at Wantsai Market, desiring to go into town by tramcar, would have to walk nearly a quarter of a mile to the tramline, and it was realised that a motor bus service along Queen's Road would be much more profitable after than before the completion of the Praya East Reclamation scheme.\n\n10. Mr. Wolfe asked whether, if we were allowed to run the Queen's Road buses, we would undertake the service to the University and Felix Villas, etc. I said we would be quite prepared to do so, provided Mr. Taggart wished to withdraw his buses along these routes. I went further and said that the Tramway Company was quite prepared to undertake all the motor bus services, as well as the tramway services and trolley vehicle services, which are now or which at any future period may be required in the Colony.\n\n11. Our Queen's Road scheme was submitted to the Government nearly three years ago, and one of Mr. Wolfe's reasons for considering Mr. Taggart's proposition is that Mr. Taggart would be prepared to run a taxicab company as part of a large company which, however, must include the Queen's Road motor bus service; and as the Police had never had the slightest trouble with the Hong Kong Hotel buses with regard to satisfactory maintenance or upkeep, it is only natural that Mr. Wolfe would welcome a taxicab company which could be relied upon to maintain its vehicles in a first-class condition.\n\n12. Finally, I made this suggestion to Mr. Wolfe: that although my Board of Directors would feel that they had been treated unfairly if any company other than the Tramway Company was permitted to operate a regular motor bus service close to and parallel with the tram lines, I hoped that, should this unhappy state of affairs eventually come about, the Government would give an undertaking that the Tramway Company, and only the Tramway Company, would be permitted to operate motor buses actually along the tram track, which we, of course, maintain, and which, being necessarily in the centre of the road, bears most of the heavy transport of the Colony for the whole of the 9 miles which separates Shaukiwan from Kennedy Town.\n\nJanuary 3rd, 1928.\n\n(sd.) L. C. F. BELLAMY.\n\n52", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 549403, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "page_number": 46, "title": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "content_text": "61\n\n36\n\nCAPITAL COST OF DEVELOPMENT, EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENTS CARRIED OUT BY YOUR PETITIONERS DURING THE 10 YEARS 1919–1928 EXCLUSIVE OF MAINTENANCE AND REPAIRS.\n\nYEAR TRACK, ETC. ROLLING STOCK. EQUIPMENT & GENERAL TRAMWAY PROPERTY. TOTAL.\n\n$\n\n1919 35,661 9,429 9,947 55,037\n\n1920 396,942 15,892 43,560 456,394\n\n1921 264,791 84,554 34,814 384,159\n\n1922 189,309 31,229 44,808 265,406\n\n1923 93,306 140,093 93,105 327,104\n\n1924 140,322 146,597 118,877 405,796\n\n1925 61,231 92,358 53,412 207,001\n\n1926 48,072 56,955 62,722 167,749\n\n1927 137,753 34,676 18,496 190,925\n\n1928 22,411 82,180 16,930 121,521\n\n10 years $1,389,798 $694,563 $496,731 $2,581,092\n\nOver the same period attention to the demands of efficient upkeep and Maintenance was served to the extent of an additional amount of $1,943,965.\n\n10. Under the Ordinance your Petitioners have to pay a Royalty to Government for the privilege of maintaining this service. The Royalties paid by your Petitioners to Government over the period 1914-1928 are as follows:-\n\n22/9-31/12/14 1914 2,702.06\n\n1915 10,715.00\n\n1916 19,798.47\n\n1917 17,907.97\n\n1918 17,356.47\n\n1919 20,079.30\n\n1920 23,861.68\n\n1921 27,664.84\n\n1922 32,719.46\n\n1923 39,022.66\n\n1924 52,432.79\n\n1925 38,016.19\n\n1926 39,040.40\n\n1927 49,992.12\n\n1928 49,176.69 $440,487.00\n\n11. The above mentioned Royalty has, in accordance with Section 47 of the Tramway Ordinance, been paid at the rate of 5% per annum of the profits of your Petitioners. From and after October 1939 in accordance with the Ordinance Royalties will be payable at the rate of 25% per annum of your Petitioners' profits.\n\n37\n\n12. By Regulations made by the Governor-in-Council under Section 3 (9) of the Vehicles and Traffic Regulations Ordinance 1912, Ordinance No. 20 of 1912 as amended by the Vehicles and Traffic Regulations Ordinance 1921, Ordinance No. 4 of 1921, on the 1st day of April 1921, it was (inter alia) provided as follows:--\n\n(i) It shall be lawful for the Governor-in-Council to grant by licence to any person, whose tender is accepted, the exclusive right of maintaining services of public motor vehicles within such portions of the Colony as may be defined in such licence subject to the Regulations hereinafter mentioned.\n\n(ii) No licence for the exclusive right of maintaining any service of public motor vehicles shall be granted unless it has been put up to public tender.\n\n13. By Regulations made by the Governor-in-Council under the same Ordinance on the 18th December 1924, the Regulations for granting exclusive rights of maintaining services of public motor vehicles and for enforcing the obligations of any persons to whom such rights may be granted etc. made by the Governor-in-Council on the 1st day of April 1921 were thereby rescinded.\n\n14. On the 12th day of February 1925 your Petitioners wrote to the Honourable the Colonial Secretary enquiring whether the Government would be prepared to consider proposals by your Petitioners for the provision of a railless trolley vehicle service or a motor omnibus service from the City Hall eastwards along Queen's Road East and Morrison Gap Road and westwards along Queen's Road Central and Queen's Road West which your Petitioners suggested would be a great convenience to the public.\n\n15. On the 30th day of March 1925 the Honourable the Colonial Secretary wrote to your Petitioners informing them that the Government could not approve of either a railless trolley vehicle or motor bus service along the routes mentioned as the streets in question were too narrow for such vehicles and that the then present tramway supplemented by jinrikshas appeared to be sufficient,\n\n16. By Regulations made by the Governor-in-Council under the Vehicles and Traffic Regulations Ordinance on the 1st day of October 1925 it was provided inter alia :-\n\n(i) Grants of exclusive rights of maintaining services of public motor vehicles or any particular type or types or class or classes of public motor vehicles may be made by the Governor-in-Council in accordance with these Regulations.\n\n(ii) Any grant shall be by licence and may be limited to any route or routes within or portion or portions of the Colony.\n\n(iii) No licence as aforesaid shall be granted unless it has been put up to public tender.\n\n17. On the 10th day of January 1927 the Honourable Mr. D: G. M. Bernard, the then Chairman of your Petitioners, wrote to the Honourable the Captain Superintendent of Police with regard to traffic facilities in general in the Colony in which he stressed the idea of a co-ordinated scheme of electric and petrol bus traction free from any unfair competition in which your Petitioners were prepared to co-operate.\n\n18. On the 9th day of August 1927 your Petitioners wrote to the Honourable the Colonial Secretary suggesting that a passenger transportation service from Causeway Bay via Caroline Road, Leighton Hill Road, Morrison Gap Road, Queen's Road East, Queen's Road West to Whitty Street and return would be a great convenience to the public and enquiring whether the Government would be prepared to consider a\n\n62", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 549404, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "page_number": 47, "title": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "content_text": "63\n\n38\n\nproposal by your Petitioners for the provision of a motor bus service along the thoroughfares mentioned. To this letter your Petitioners received no acknowledgment other than a printed form of receipt.\n\n19. By Regulations made by His Excellency the Officer Administering the Government-in-Council under Section 3 of the Vehicles and Traffic Ordinance 1912 on the 19th day of November 1927 it was provided that notwithstanding the provisions of the Public motor vehicle services, Regulations made by the Governor-in-Council under the Vehicles and Traffic Regulations Ordinance 1912 and set forth on pages 655 to 665 of the Regulations of Hong Kong 1844 to 1925 the Governor-in-Council should have power without calling for tenders to grant rights and to issue licences to maintain public motor bus services exclusive and otherwise for such periods at such fees royalties or other consideration and upon such terms and conditions as the Governor-in-Council shall see fit.\n\n20. The publication of this Regulation did not convey any intimation to your Petitioners that Government had changed its views as to whether or not Queen's Road and the other Roads mentioned were too narrow for the service of motor buses.\n\n21. On the 31st December 1927 your Petitioners' Manager had an interview with the Honourable the Captain Superintendent of Police. At that interview the Captain Superintendent of Police agreed that it had been found possible to run buses along Queen's Road and stated that he was considering the question of some arrangement with a view to a Bus service being operated from Causeway Bay to Whitty Street by Caroline Road, Queen's Road East, Queen's Road Central and Queen's Road West.\n\nYour Petitioners' Manager then informed Mr. Wolfe that the offer contained in your Petitioners' letter to the Colonial Secretary of the 12th February 1925 (and repeated on August 9th 1927) still held good, and further that your Petitioners were quite prepared to undertake all the motor bus services, as well as the Tramway services and Trolley Vehicle services which were then, or which at any future period might be, required in the Colony.\n\n22. On the 10th of January 1928 your Petitioners wrote to the Honourable the Colonial Secretary making application for authority to operate a service of motor buses over their tramway route.\n\n23. On the 24th February 1928 your Petitioners addressed a letter as follows to the Honourable the Captain Superintendent of Police:—\n\n\"Sir,\n\n\"I beg to inform you that the Board of Directors of this Company intend to \"order six motor omnibuses which will be 25-seaters for first class passengers only.\n\n\"We propose to run these buses on such route or routes as may be agreed with \"the Government either in Hong Kong, Kowloon or the New Territories.\n\n\"We are still anxious to run the service via Caroline Road, Morrison Gap Road, \"Queen's Road East, Queen's Road Central and Queen's Road West in accordance with \"our application to Government dated February 12th 1925 but there is another service \"we now seek power to operate. This is between Taikoo and Blake Pier by the \"route marked red on the accompanying map. This route would serve Quarry Bay, Tsat Tsz Mui Bathing Club, the Yacht Club, the Polo Club, the Lee Theatre, the \"Craigengower Club, the Police Club, the Civil Service Club and the Royal Naval \"Hospital.\n\n39\n\n\"Although six months will probably elapse before the buses can be delivered in \"Hong Kong I hope we may receive your sanction to the operation of this service at \"as early a date as possible so that we may make certain preliminary arrangements.\n\n\"I am directed to refer to your letter of the 18th ultimo and to say that the \"Board concurs in most of your reasons for desiring a motor bus service along Queen's \"Road. To use your own words \"A number of new factors have come to light since \"1925\" when our proposal to run buses along Queen's Road was turned down and as \"one of these new factors is that buses have been successfully using Queen's Road \"East for many months it is felt that the Government should now give us the permission we sought 3 years ago to operate the Queen's Road service.\n\n\"The Board feels that if it had had buses actually available you might have \"given such permission two years ago or when it appeared that the Government's \"reasons for withholding consent to our application of February 1925 no longer held \"good. Hence the Board's intention to place a preliminary order for vehicles which \"it is hoped you will allow us to put into service towards the end of the present year.\n\n\"I have the honour to be etc.'\n\n12\n\n24. To that letter your Petitioners received a reply from the Captain Superintendent of Police informing them that the question of motor bus services was coming up for decision very shortly and that he hoped to be in a position to give a reply before very long. However, in the meantime he wished it to be understood that any orders that your Petitioners give for buses would be given entirely on their own initiative and that so far as he was concerned your Petitioners were in no way authorised to put them on the streets of Hong Kong at present and that with reference to the application dealing with the route Taikoo to Blake Pier he would endeavour to deal with this matter after the Governor-in-Council had considered the services in Hong Kong and the allotment of them.\n\n25. On the 11th June 1928 the Honourable the Colonial Secretary wrote to your Petitioners giving them permission to operate a service of motor buses over their tramway routes. The service to be confined to the routes operated by the tramways including Happy Valley.\n\n26. In the meantime in the course of the year 1928 permission was granted by Government to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Hotels Limited to run a service of motor buses between Whitty Street and Causeway Bay via Queen's Road West, Queen's Road Central and Queen's Road East and this service was inaugurated in October 1928.\n\n27. Later the Hong Kong and Shanghai Hotels Limited buses were allowed to extend their route first through Tai Hang Village to Whitfield and afterwards to extend to Kennedy Town.\n\n28. Your Petitioners would point out that although in 1925 Government considered that the roads referred to were too narrow for motor omnibuses, yet when the Hong Kong and Shanghai Hotels Limited's service started, it was started with the Vulcan \"Princess\" bus, a 35-seater than which there is probably no bigger single deck four-wheel bus used in Great Britain and when used there are only licensed for use where the roads are wide and particularly suitable for such buses. This is in accordance with the circular from the Minister of Transport under date the 11th August 1927 para. 12, which lays down that as a general practice local authorities should not license omnibuses which exceed 26′0′′ in overall length.\n\n29. The competition of the Hong Kong and Shanghai Hotel's buses by their operation over these routes has (as was anticipated by your Petitioners) caused a very serious loss to them. The profits of your Petitioners for the nine months ending\n\n64", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 549407, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "page_number": 50, "title": "CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935", "content_text": "49. Your Petitioners therefore submit that their undertaking having been so seriously depreciated in value as the result of the competition authorised by Government referred to above it is neither just nor equitable that your Petitioners should in the future be called upon to pay any portion of their profits to Government as laid down in Section 47 of the Tramways Ordinance 1902.\n\nYour Petitioners therefore humbly pray that Your Excellency may be pleased to take such steps as may be necessary for the introduction into and the passing by the Legislative Council of Hong Kong of an Ordinance to amend the Tramways Ordinance, No. 10 of 1902, by the deletion of Clause 47 of that Ordinance and by providing that your Petitioners shall not thereafter be required to pay any royalty in respect of their undertaking.\n\nAnd your Petitioners will ever pray, &c.\n\nDated this 16th day of December, 1929.\n\nSEALED with the Common Seal of Hong Kong Tramways Limited and signed by Benjamin David Fleming Beith and Leonard John Davies two of the Directors thereof and Countersigned by William Frederick Simmons the Secretary thereof in the presence of :-\n\n(sd.) D. J. LEWIS, Solicitor,\n\nHONG KONG.\n\nL.S.\n\n(sd.) B. D. F. BEITH.\n\n(sd.) L. J. DAVIES.\n\n(sd.) W. F. SIMMONS.\n\nEnclosure No. (8).\n\n'The Hong Kong Daily Press'\n\n(Leading Article of 21st March, 1930).\n\nTRAMS AND MOTOR-BUSES.\n\nSome very striking facts and figures were revealed by the Chairman of the Hong Kong Tramways, Ltd., at the annual general meeting of that concern. Traffic receipts for last year amounted to $1,606,000—a total which shows a falling-off of nearly three lakhs as compared with receipts for 1928. This remarkable drop, we are told, is mainly due to the competition of motor-bus services. During the year efforts were made by the Company to obtain from the authorities the necessary permission to run its motor-buses on more remunerative routes than those now maintained, but without meeting with much success. The Chairman did not indicate what applications were actually refused, nor the reasons given for such refusal. Nor was anything said in explanation of a curious state of affairs revealed at the previous annual meeting in connection with the bus-service along Queen's Road.\n\nQuite a lot of interest was aroused in this matter twelve months ago, but neither the directors nor the shareholders referred to the subject at the general meeting held this week. If the mystery has been solved, it is a pity the solution was not revealed; if it still remains a mystery, it is strange nobody troubled to ask why it has not been solved.\n\nThe Tramway Company long since realised the possibilities of petrol-driven passenger vehicles, and five years ago applied for permission to run a bus service between Causeway Bay and Whitty Street via Queen's Road. On the ground that the last-named thoroughfare was too narrow to carry such traffic this application was refused. Two years later, in 1927, this application was renewed, but nothing happened beyond a formal official acknowledgment of its receipt. In 1928 a third application was made by the Tramway Company for permission to run a service between Taikoo and Blake Pier, but again without success, though a permit was given that year to another concern, allowing a bus service through a street which had been previously described as too narrow for such traffic.\n\nThe result of this concession was that for a distance of nearly five miles the tramways had to run in competition with another company operating a motor-bus service which followed a shorter route between two busy terminal points. Eventually official permission was given to the Tramway Company to run buses anywhere along its own routes—a concession which is not quite the same as being able to run services either alternative or supplementary to those already maintained on the rails.\n\nLicences to run motor-bus services are becoming exceedingly valuable now-a-days in every part of the world, and the circumstances attending the granting or refusal of applications to establish services are very closely scrutinised by the parties interested—and they include the public.\n\nThe public whom these services are designed to serve surely has a right to know a little more than it does about the manner in which applications for permission to establish bus services in the Colony are dealt with. So far as we are aware, no explanation has been ever given as to why a privilege refused to one concern on a very definite ground was granted to another without the objection originally mentioned having been removed or amended.\n\nHowever, some interesting developments were hinted at in the speeches made at the Tramway Company meeting. The Chairman announced that negotiations have been opened with a view to acquiring the business of the Hong Kong Hotel Motor Garage. At an early date it is proposed to inform shareholders of the position and lay certain proposals before them. Disclosures of the nature of these proposals will be awaited with very keen interest. Judging by what was said at the recent meeting, it seems probable that the mystery to which we have already referred is to be intensified by the concern to which the Queen's Road licence was granted two years ago negotiating the sale of that franchise to the concern whose application for the privilege was refused by the Government.\n\nIn other words, there appears to be prospects of the Tramway Company acquiring indirectly that which it was found impossible to acquire by the direct method—a curious state of affairs which, no doubt, can be but has not been explained.\n\nPage 50\n\nPage 51", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-555-1 Hong Kong Tramways Ltd.- petition 10-7-1935 - 4-10-1935.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 566328, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-579-11-2 Sino-Japanese War- seizure of unauthorized wireless transmitting apparatus 13-2-1939 - 7-5-1940", "page_number": 101, "title": "CO129-579-11-2 Sino-Japanese War- seizure of unauthorized wireless transmitting apparatus 13-2-1939 - 7-5-1940", "content_text": "55\n\nBack Room. Right hand Steel Cabinet. Bottom Drawer.\n\n100\n\nTRANSLATION OF INTELLIGENCE EXTRACTS No.133. 12/7/39.\n\nHong Kong Enemy pay attention to 'buying'\n\nKwangsi Traitors.\n\n李化夫\n\nIt is learnt that the enemy has sent LI FAN FU, cartoonist and Kwangtung Traitor, to secretly buy our military officers and politicians who are wandering in Hong Kong, particularly those who have worked in Kwangsi.\n\n錢柳州\n\nCHIN SAU KONG, a native of LIUCHAU has been tempted with money.\n\ncase\n\nIt is learnt that the enemy transported 4 cases of Mauser pistols, totalling 200 pieces, from the TING YUEN WO YUEN in Whitty Street at midnight on the 1st July. They were shipped to Bias Bay. The enemy has recently transported large quantities of ammunition, hidden on fishing junks off the Causeway Bay Typhoon Shelter, to PAK HOI.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-579-11-2 Sino-Japanese War- seizure of unauthorized wireless transmitting apparatus 13-2-1939 - 7-5-1940.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]