CO885-(15-16) — Page 559

*

12151.

SIR,

No. 113.

(SOUTH AFRICA.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Draft Rhodesia Railways Order in Council: draft reply to Mr. Hawksley's letter of 28th December, 1908.]

Royal Courts of Justice, 3rd April, 1909. We were honoured with Your Lordship's commands signified to us in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 29th ultimo, stating that in reference to our report of the 19th February last on the subject of Mr. Hawksley's observations with regard to the draft Rhodesia Railways Order in Council, he was directed by Your Lordship to transmit to us for our consideration the draft of a letter which it was proposed to send to Mr. Hawksley in reply to his letter of the 28th December last. That Mr. H. Bertram Cox was to request us to report whether in our opinion the terms of the draft were a clear and sufficient statement of the position.

We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to Your Lordship's commands, have the honour to

Report

That we approve the draft reply as initialled by us.

In our opinion it contains a clear and sufficient statement of the position.

The Right Honourable

The Earl of Crewe, K.G..

&c., &c., &c.

We have, &c.,

W. S. ROBSON.

S. T. EVANS,

(Draft.) SIR,

Downing Street,

1909.

I AM directed by the Earl of Crewe to inform you that His Lordship has had under his careful consideration your letter of the 28th of December last, submitting certain observations on the draft of the proposed Order in Council relating to the railways in the territories of the British South Africa Company and in the Bechuanaland Protectorate.

2. The most important points raised in your letter would appear to be (1) that in the event of the Railway Companies becoming insolvent or their share- holders desiring to liquidate, nothing in the proposed Order in Council would prevent a good title being given to a foreign purchaser.

(2) that it is unreasonable to place a restriction upon the flow of capital into a British possession which does not apply to British capital in a foreign country.

(3) that the proposed Order in Council would restrict the rights of debenture

holders and should not be made retrospective without their consent.

(4) that the objects which it is sought to secure by the proposed Order in Council could be equally well secured by power being taken to expropriate at any time any rail- ways within the territories enumerated.

(5) that the Nyasaland Protectorate should be included within the terms of the proposed Order in Council.

With regard to them I am to observe as follows:-

3. With regard to (1) Lord Crewe does not agree with the suggestion that the Order as drafted would not prevent a good title being given by one of the existing Railway Companies to a foreign purchaser. The draft provides that the conditions set forth in Article 6 of the Charter shall be applied to the Railway Companies and Lord Crewe is advised that they could not, on insolvency or liquidation, give a title to any purchaser relieved of these conditions. However, instead of incorporating Article 6 by reference it is now proposed to recite it in the Order and to draft the operative words of the Order so as to follow the Article closely and thereby leave no room for the doubt expressed by you.

4. As regards (2) Lord Crewe cannot agree that there is any true parallel between the cases suggested by you of the employment of British capital in foreign countries and

(13226—2.) Wt, 96–332. 25, 1990, DA 87

No. 110.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TLC.O.885

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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