Page:Crime and government at Hong Kong.pdf/52

 of the above office, were so largely increased, in favour of the individual then recently raised to them, as to attract the notice of Downing Street, and to cause the disallowance of the most dangerous of those new provisions; but not until they had done much mischief, in the manner in which he had exercised them.

A new Ordinance, omitting those provisions, was accordingly prepared in the following year; and it passed into a law, on the very day, when the first discussion on the malpractices of the individual, who still retained those offices (Mr. Daniel Richard Caldwell), with regard to Brothels' Licenses took place in the Legislative Council;—that is to say, on the 10th May, 1858.

In the interval, however, his other office, that of Crown Licenser of Brothels, had been specially created for him. I was known to be wholly opposed to the measure; and once already I had defeated the attempt to carry it through the Legislative Council. I had no objection to sanatory regulations, for purposes, strongly and conclusively urged, by our naval and military commanders in those regions, for many years past; and I had even proposed a measure, for the indemnity of such as submitted themselves, to such regulations, against prosecution under the local law. But, to any system of Crown Licenses for Brothels, upon payment of Crown Fees, I was altogether hostile.

Dr. Bridges, therefore, urged the occasion of my absence on sick-leave, during the autumn of 1857, to make one last attempt to pass his measure; remarking