The newly-established Legislative Council commenced its sittings on January 11, 1844, and displayed an extraordinary amount of energy. Within four months the Council compiled, considered and passed twelve Colonial and five Consular Ordinances, that is to say about one Ordinance each week. The Council began its labours by grappling, boldly rather than wisely, with one of the congenital diseases of the Chinese social organism, which has survived to the present day, viz. Chinese bond-servitude, a contractual relationship which, from a moral point of view, is indeed but a form of slavery but which differs widely from that kind of slavery to which the Acts of Parliament had reference. Ordinance No. 1 of 1844, intended to define and promulgate the law relating to slavery in Hongkong, was promptly launched by the Council (February 28, 1844), but wisely disallowed by the Secretary of State on the ground that the English laws as to slavery extend by their own proper force and authority to Hongkong and require no further definition or promulgation. Among six other Ordinances passed on the same busy day (February 28, 1844), there was one (No. 2 of 1844) intended to regulate the printing of books and papers and the keeping of printing presses, which the community considered needless and premature but which remained on the statute book until 1886. Another (No. 3 of 1844), organising the Land Registry, above mentioned, also became law. A third (No. 4 of 1844), intended to obviate an evil which, to the present day, troubles the Colony in connection with the practice of shipmasters to leave behind destitute seamen (locally called beachcombers), was unfortunately disallowed. Another batch of five Ordinances was passed on March 20, 1844. One of them (No. 5 of 1844) dealt with the preservation of order and cleanliness and was subsequently repealed by No. 14 of 1845. Another (No. 4 of 1844) provided that, pending the arrival of Chief Justice Hulme, all civil suits should be settled by arbitration. Another Ordinance (No. 7 of 1844) limited legal interest to 12 per cent., whilst again another prohibited the unlicensed distillation of spirits (No. 8 of 1844). Three more Ordinances were passed on
