🚀 go-pugleaf

TJ escribi�:
> been so untruthful after the passing of the Ordinance, we can put no
> reliance on their statements previous to its enactments, and the
> more so because the statistics for Hong Kong in its early days are
> hopelessly confused with the general statistics for all China,
> wherever British soldiers or sailors were to be found. Therefore they
> are unavailable for citation. But as to statements made after the
> passage of the Ordinance, we append a compilation, as set forth by Dr.
> Birkbeck Nevins of Liverpool, England.
> 
>     SHAMELESS AND YET OFFICIALLY-SANCTIONED FALSEHOOD IN PUBLISHING
>     OFFICIALLY UTTERLY UNTRUE STATISTICS IN FAVOUR OF THE C.D. ACTS IN
>     THE BRITISH COLONY OF HONG KONG WITH THE SANCTION AND AUTHORITY OF
>     THE COLONIAL GOVERNOR.
> 
>     "Referring to the Colonial Surgeon's Department, we feel bound
>     to point out that those portions of the _Annual Medical Reports_
>     which refer to the subject of the Lock Hospital _have, in too many
>     instances, been altogether misleading_." (Report of Commission, p.
>     2, parag. 2.)
> 
>     "In 1862 (five years after the Act had been in force) Dr. Murray
>     was '_completely satisfied_ with the _incalculable_ benefit that
>     had resulted to the colony from the Ordinance of 1857'"[A]
> 
>     [Footnote A: An extreme form of 

No veo los "HdP"  :-PPPPPPPPP