7
The Foreign Office and the China
Association have objected to the Foreshore and
Sea Bed Works Bill on the ground that its provisions
might be used by the Chinese Government as an
argument and precedent for similar action in
China,not in view of potential aevelopments,
but solely for the political purpose of asserting
Sovereign rights.
Except in the letter referred to ober
from John wire and cons Limi
Limites, we have
overleaf
not previously had information as to objections
being made to the Bill in Hong Kong on the
ground that it interfers unduly with the private.
rights of riparian owners in the Colony.
draft The B
The Bill was submitted to us in uraft
for approval in November 1931 (see (1) on
82746/31/31) anu, subject to certain amenaments
which have now been incorporated the
sill, was approved in May, 1932 (see (7) on 82746/51/31).
In view of the representations received
here, the Governor has already been asked by
telegram to send a full report by despatch
(see
ee (3) on 13717/1/33).As he has been asked
inter alia what would be the objections to
aropping the Bill, I think that his report must
>
ueal with the question of interference with
private rights in long nong as well as with the
possibility of repercussions in China upon which
aspect he was especially asked to report.
Pending the receipt of this
report