CO537-(1262-1649) — Page 263

1

2

cms

Ref.:

Please note that this copy is

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

Ins

restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet. py is supplied subject to the National Archives' terms and conditions and that your use of it may be subject to copyright

00048

48

1

2

cms

Ref.:

CO 537/1374

THE NATIONAL ARCHIVES

N

restrictions. Further information is given in the enclosed Terms and Conditions of supply of National Archives' leaflet.

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

4.

(contd)

(0)

companies or individuals, and all of whom

retained their freedom to trade and made

large profits while British and Allied subjects were interned and did not pay. that the benefit of any concession or sacrifice by the Bank through the valid- ation of payments made to the liquidators would enure mainly to a small group of big debtors most of whom accumulated large fortunes during the war and many were active collaborators. The concession would not benefit British or Allied subjects who were either interned or away from the Colony and would undoubtedly vigorously resent the injustice of sacrificing their interests in order to attempt to please those who did not deserve consideration and who certainly ought not to profit at the expense of an innocent party.

The proposed legislation is confiscatory and penalises one class of the community for the benefit of another. It is retrospective in effect and is designed to deprive creditors of the contract al rights which accrued due to them before and during the occupation period in reliance on the law as it stood and had been universally applied in British territories. The question of the retrospective enforcement of legislation upon British subjecta so as to deprive them of their vested rights and the benefit of the expenditure of their capital and labour has been more than once considered by the law offices of the Crown, and has by their unanimous opinion been declared harsh and unfair unless accompanied by compensation.

+

It is inconceivable that the law offices of the Crown to- dys having regard to the principle and precedent, or the Privy Council on an appeal, would view with favour an Ordinance having for its object and effect the robbing retrospectivàly of one section of the community of debts payable by virtue of legal obligations and recoverable by process of Law long before the passing of the legislation.

If as a matter of public policy, there were any justification for equalising the losses of debtors and creditors, it would be a more

er

1

J