🚀 go-pugleaf

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 C.D. Acts, without parallel in any
    other place under British rule.]

    "In 1865 (after eight years' experience) he wrote, 'the _good_ the
    Ordinance does _is undoubted_; but the good it might do, were all
    the unlicensed brothels suppressed, was incalculable.'"

    "In 1867 (after ten years' experience) the _public_ was informed
    that the Ordinance had been 'on trial for nearly ten years, and
    _had done singular service_.'"

    _Yet in this very same year_--1867, April 19th--"Dr. Murray stated