CO885-6 — Page 417

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TILLIC.O. 882

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

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

28774

SIR,

8

No. 3.

BOARD OF TRADE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

(Received September 1, 1900.)

[Answered by No. 9.]

Board of Trade (Marine Department),

7, Whitehall Gardens, London, S.W., August 31, 1900. WITH reference to your letters of the 11th April* and 23rd July last, I am directed by the Board of Trade to state that they have carefully considered the provi- sions of the Hong Kong Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance forwarded to this Department, and I am now to transmit to you, to be laid before Mr. Secretary Chamberlain, a copy of a memorandum which has been prepared by the Solicitor to the Board containing his observations on certain clauses of the Ordinance.

I am also to request you to be so good as to invite Mr. Chamberlain's attention to the notes which have been made by the Solicitor on the accompanying copy of the Ordinance.†

Enclosure in No. 3.

I have, &c.,

COURTENAY BOYLE.

MEMORANDUM OF SOLICITOR re HONG KONG ORDINANCE.

In reference to the letter from Mr. C. P. Lucas to the Assistant Secretary of the Board of Trade, dated the 11th April last, I have the following observations to make on the points to which attention is called:-

Paragraph 3.-The remarks in this paragraph are to a certain extent dealt with by my notes on the Bill to clause 9 (1), (2), and (3), and, as pointed out, it will be well to bring the form of the whole of this clause so far as it relates to deserters into con- formity with Section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act. Sub-section 6, however, deals more especially with imprisonment for offences committed within the waters of the Colony, and for which punishment is prescribed in paragraphs D, E, F and G, of sub-

clause 5 of clause 9.

It is presumably intended to deal with these offences, which are not under the provisions of section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act, but which are offences the punishment for which can be conveniently arranged for between the different nations. This, therefore, is, I presume, the reason why sub-clause 6 goes beyond the provisions of section 238 of the Merchant Shipping Act by giving the Magistrate power, among other things, to simply hand the offender over to his Consular authority without specifying what is to become of him. As the ship to which he belonged may

have sailed, this in itself may be a convenient power, but, as before stated, is not one of the powers conferred by section 238, unless it can be said that the Consular Officer is for this purpose an Agent for the owner of the vessel.

It is presumed that this sub-clause is not intended to refer to deserters who can be apprehended but not confined, but the expenses of the apprehension might well be provided for as the words at present are "apprehension and confinement."

Paragraph 4-This is a suggested addition of the provisions of section 224, sub- section 2, of the Merchant Shipping Act. This sub-section in the Act applies to the United Kingdom only, and I think that the suggestion of the Colonial Office will require very careful consideration. It may be from local considerations very undesir- able to apply the provisions of this section to a place like Hong Kong, and it is a matter more to be judged by those having local experience.

I may remark that the insertion of the suggested sub-section may involve a reconsideration of the provisions of clause 5 (6) and (7) (B) of this Ordinance, and of clause 9 (1) (a) and (5) (B); and I would also point out that if the proposed sub- section be added it should be confined to ships registered in the Colony, as section 224 (2) is confined to the United Kingdom, and, further, in conformity with the remarks contained in my notes on the Ordinance, the Merchant Shipping Act should be repealed specifically, even if sub-section 2 of section 224 is to be applied only to the case of ships registered in the Colony.

• No. 2.

† Not printed.

9

Paragraph 5-This refers to section 29, which is one of those grouped under the heading of Part VI. Regulations and Control of the Waters of the Colony and of vessels using the same, which deals also with the duty of the Harbour Master.

Similar subject matter had been dealt with in the Ordinance of 1891, paragraph 2, which the present Ordinance consolidates and amends, and the title of both Ordinances is, as regards subject matter, the same.

Accordingly, I see no objection in principle to this section, as it forms part of the Code regulating the duties of the Harbour Master.

For convenience I may add the corresponding sections:-

Section 26 of the present Ordinance corresponds generally to section 28 of the

1891 Ordinance.

Section 27 of the present Ordinance corresponds to section 20 of 1891 Ordin-

ance.

Section 28 of the present Ordinance corresponds to section 30 of 1891 Ordin-

ance.

Section 29 is new.

Section 30 corresponds to section 31, except sub-section 3, which is new. Paragraph 6.--I certainly think that this suggestion might well be given effect to. Paragraph 7.--As regards table "J," there is no necessity to retain it, because section 5, sub-section 5, enables the Governor from time to time to fix them within the limits prescribed by table "I.”

Its retention or otherwise is really a matter of no great importance, but I should have thought it more convenient to retain it.

I see no objection to the concluding suggestion of this paragraph. Paragraph 8.—If it is in contemplation that table "L" should be omitted, it will have to be considered whether any alteration should be made in clause 23 (1) and 42 (2). Paragraph 9. As the right of a Chinese person to own a British ship and fly the British flag is a very considerable concession, and an alteration of the Merchant Shipping Act, it might have been thought that the persons to whom such privileges are granted should increase their security.

Paragraph 10.-These criticisms seem to be fairly met by clause 3 (13), 8 (1) and 41 (1) and (2) of the Ordinance, and compare section 261 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.

Paragraph 11.--See my observations on paragraph 3 of Mr. Lucas's letter, and considering that D, E, F and G of sub-section 5 of clause 9 relate to matters of discipline on board foreign ships, I see no reason why the nation to which the ship belongs should not bear the charge.

Paragraph 12. As regards this paragraph, I am inclined to think that the proposal in paragraph 7 of the Governor's memorandum is sound in principle, but probably it would be better to give effect to that principle by enacting that the Colonial Court should non-suit the Chinese owner if it were shown that the collision was due to his non-observance of the collision regulations. This would be a less drastic remedy than precluding the Chinese owner from suing in a Colonial Court until his Govern. ment had adopted the International regulations.

The marginal notes in some cases seem to require revising.

August 25, 1900.

Attached to 28774

No. 4.

SIR C. BOYLE to MR. LUCAS.

R. E. C.

DEAR MR. LUCAS, Board of Trade, Whitehall Gardens, S.W., September 1, 1900.

I AM sending to the Colonial Office an official letter,* enclosing copy of a memo randum by our Solicitor with regard to the Hong Kong Merchant Shipping Consolida- tion Ordinance. I also send, for your confidential information, a copy of a further memorandum by Mr. Cunliffe on the subject.

* No. 3.

Yours, &c..

COURTENAY BOYLE.

12425

1.