CO885-(15-16) — Page 23

9902

SIR,

No. 27.

(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Royal Courts of Justice,

March 28, 1900.

WE were honoured with your cominands signified in Mr. Lucas's letter of the 22ml instant, stating that with reference to our report, dated 11th November, 1899,* with respect to the rights of the Crown in the foreshore and in the open sea within territorial limits in the Straits Settlements, he was directed by you to, transmit to us a copy of a draft Bill prepared by the Government of the Straits Settlements, which had been prepared in pursuance of your instructions conveyed in a despatch of 21st November, 4899, based upon the opinion expressed by us in our report.

That it would be seen that not only did this Bill affect to grant or demise certain part of the sea shore to the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company (section 2), and to validate all former grants and leases of the foreshore or of the sea bed (section 3), but that by it power was reserved for the Governor from time to time to make such grants or leases in the future (section 4).

That under those circumstances you were somewhat doubtful whether the rights of the public were sufficiently safeguarded in those provisions. That the only com- pensation it was presumed that the public could receive for the extinguishment of their rights would be the general utility of the purposes for which the "lands" were taken, but that it appeared to you to be open to question whether the land should be alienated in perpetuity; and, whether, even if this should be considered desirable, there should not be power reserved to resume occupation, or rather possession of the lands, if at any future time it should be found necessary or expedient to do so, on proper compensation being made.

That Mr. Lucas was accordingly to request us to take these matters into our consideration, and to report whether the draft Bill was sufficient and proper for the purpose for which it was intended, or if not, what alterations should be made in it.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to

Report

That we think it would be better that the ordinance should provide for the future grant of leases only. Such leases may be for any length of time that is reasonably necessary in view of the works proposed to be erected. We would further suggest that section 5 of the Ordinance should provide for the insertion of a clause that if the land ceases to be used for the purposes for which it was demised, possession of the land ruay he resumed by the Government.

We presume that the words "in order

13

in section 5 should read "in or under,"

and we suggest that the clause in question should be qualified by the addition at the end

of some such words as the following, "so far as is necessary for the purposes of the proposed works."

If there is any probability that there may be minerals under the foreshore or bed of the sea, words reserving them should be inserted.

The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P.,

We have, &c.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

No. 241 in Vol. V.

6447-35-3/1900 Wt

D & B

B

1

RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

། :། ། ། ། ། mwi mmf mC.O. 885

15 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH NOT TO

}