00111
109 3
Bank of England
5th April 1946.
2
cms
Ref.:
THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES
CO 537/1369
restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of
Please note that this copy is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright
National Archives' leaflet.
ich
My dear Caine,
Thank you for your letter dated 3rd April (15117/2/46) enclosing
a copy of the draft Ordinance to validate Hong Kong "duress" notes.
(1)
The points that occur to me are -
-
In Section 2
I suppose you use the words "put into circulation" to preserve the distinction between legally issued and otherwise. On the other hand I notice you use the word "issued" in the heading and "lawfully issued" later in the Section. It probably doesn't matter very much but on balance I would incline to use the word "issued" rather than "put into circulation".
(2)
I wonder if the date should be 26th December 1941 and not the 1st January 1942. Heasman's recollection is that the banks were all closed on the 26th December and onwards.
(3)
Section 2 validates the notes of the other banks as well as those of the Hongkong Bank. I suppose if you come to some arrangement
with the other banks there will have to be a separate Ordinance in so far as the Exchange Fund may be affected.
(4)
In Section 3 I think it would be clearer if, after Exchange Fund you said in brackets "(which was established under Section 6 of the Currency Ordinance 1935)".
(5)
I take it that the intention of talking about the dollar equivalent of £1 million and the additional sum that will have to be paid when ascertained, is to enable the dollar equivalent to be worked out at the current rate of exchange. I wander therefore whether you ought not to say so, the date presumably being the last day of the financial year.
(6)
The term "net income" is not defined. I think this is all
right so long as it is not decided at some future time to make a charge on the interest for other purposes than are debited now under present procedure.
(7)
Under Section 3(b) would it not be clearer to say "a sterling sum at a rate of exchange of 1/3d. to the Hong Kong dollar equivalent to the face value" instead of "a sum equal to the sterling equivalent at 1/3d. to the Hong Kong dollar of the face value"?
P.T.0.
N