CO885-6 — Page 424

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference:→

TC.O. 882

6

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

Hong Kong.

Enclosure in No. 10.

MEMO. BY SOLICITOR TO BOARD OF TRADE.

The principle of allowing persons who are not qualified under Section 1 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, to own British ships to have their ships placed on a Colonial Register has been conceded in the past by the ordinances of this Colony, but it is stated that such registration is likely to have a more extended operation owing to the reduction of expenses and the relaxation of the requirements as to certificated officers, and it is proposed by Sub-section 9 of Section 3 of the Ordinance No. 36 of 1899 that the British flag may be used on board any such ship but in view of the possibly more extended operation of this right of registration it becomes important to consider whether any complications are likely to arise if the number of ships so regis- tered becomes large, for there are no limits put on the voyages of such ships to China, and I cannot help feeling that the waters round China are likely in the present con- dition of affairs to become a fruitful ground for international complications.

but

4 (2)-I do not think that the criticism as to river steamers need be insisted upon as Section 10 (1d) mentions river steamers in addition to British Colonial and foreign ships exceeding 60 tons, it seems as if such steamers should have been specifically mentioned in 4 (2). Otherwise it would seem to be superfluous to refer to river steamers in Section 10 (1d) and if the special Licenses provided in Section 38 are practically compulsory the provisions of Section 10, so far as they relate to river steamers, must be read in conjunction with the provisions in Section 38.

4 (3). If the words in this clause "when leaving the waters of the Colony" are to stand, should not a penalty be imposed in 4 (4) on a Colonial ship not exceeding 60 tons trading or plying for hire which leaves or attempts to leave the waters of the Colony without Officers having the requisite certificate?

The penalty in sub-section 4 of this section is limited to the case of vessels leaving or attempting to leave any port.

4 (8) See letter of Board of Trade to Colonial Office of 21st June, 1901, disposing of this. 4 (12).

-I have no further observations to make on these.

6 (1). 5 (10) There is a note (not quite accurate) on this section which has not been noticed but an amendment similar to that suggested has been made in 37 (12).

9 (2)-The suggested amendment does not appear to bring the section of the Ordinance into line with the Merchant Shipping Act, but there seem to be local con- siderations why the difference should be permitted.

9 (6). My remarks on this sub-section in my memo. of 25th August, 1900, do not appear to be dealt with.

10 (1b).-There would seem to be some past usage to found a claim upon. 10 (24).—I have no further comments to make on this sub-clause.

13.-I still think that the exemption of ships which comply with the provisions of

the Merchant Shipping Act should be specifically made in the Ordinance.

14 (1).—I think this explanation may be accepted.

14 (8). I have no further remarks.

19 (5).—I do not find that my observations on this sub-section have been dealt with.

33. I do not find that the remarks, paragraph 6, in the letter from Mr. Lucas to the Board of Trade of 11th April, 1900, have been given effect to.

I do not find that the observations in paragraph 5 of the Colonial Office letter of 12th April, 1901, to Sir H. B. Blake have been dealt with. The same remarks apply to the observations in paragraphs 9, 11 and 12.

My preceding observations deal more especially with the points already raised by me which have not been met by the provisions in the amending Ordinance.

Having regard to the provisions of Section 735 of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. I think it must be conceded that there may be local reasons for sanctioning a partial repeal by the Legislature in British Possessions of some of the provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, but strong reasons should be forthcoming for allowing this to be done and the repeal should be limited to ships registered in that Possession.

It is a question how far the ships belonging to persons who are not British subjects see Section 3 (2b) should be allowed to fly the British flag, and it is for consideration

23

whether if there be a Hong Kong flag the difficulty might not be got over by allowing those vessels to fly that flag though it will probably be felt that the Home Government would have eventually to extend the same protection to that flag that they extend to the British flag.

Having regard to the provisions of Section 7 relating to distressed scamen it may be deemed advisable to call attention to the provisions of Section 4 of the Merchant Shipping and Mercantile Marine Fund Act, 1898, 61 and 62 Vict., c. 44. July 4, 1902.

28900

SIR,

No. 11.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN to GOVERNOR SIR H. A. BLAKE. (No. 272.)

R. E. C.

Downing Street, August 29, 1902. I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 484, of the 25th of November last,* submitting for the signification of His Majesty's pleasure the Merchant Shipping (Amendment) Ordinance, 1901, and to inform you that after correspondence and discussion with the Board of Trade I have come to the conclusion that certain amendments are still required in the Merchant Shipping Consolidation Ordinance, 1899.

2. As regards section 3 (2) of the principal Ordinance, further consideration has convinced me that it is undesirable that the privilege of using the British flag should be extended to persons not qualified under section 1 of the Imperial Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. As this privilege has not been made use of since it was granted in 1855, the present is an excellent opportunity for abolishing a provision, the continua- tion of which I am unable to sanction in view not only of the strong opinion in opposi- tion to it, which has been expressed by the Board of Trade, but of the international complications which might arise if the privilege were extensively granted.

3. I do not see any necessity to insist upon the original criticism with regard to the absence of reference to river-steamers in section 4 (2), but as section 10 (1) d mentions river-steamers in addition to British Colonial and Foreign ships exceeding 60 tons, a specific mention in the above subsection would seem to be desirable. Other- wise it would appear to be superfluous to refer to river-steamers in section 10 (1) d, and if the special Licences provided in section 38 are practically compulsory, the provisions of section 10, so far as they relate to river-steamers, must be read in con- junction with section 38.

4. In section 4 (4) a penalty must be imposed on a Colonial ship not exceed- ing 60 tons trading or plying for hire which leaves or attempts to leave the waters of the Colony without Officers having the requisite certificate. The penalty in this subsection is limited at present to the case of vessels leaving or attempting to leave any port.

5. In connection with the provisions of section 7 relating to distressed seamen,

I would call attention to the provisions of section 4 of the Imperial Merchant Ship- ping and Mercantile Marine Fund Act, 1898, 61 and 62 Viet. c. 44.

6. The necessity for some amplification of the latter part of section 8 (4), referred to in paragraph 9 of my despatch, No. 118, of the 12th-of April, 1901,† so as to define more clearly the several liabilities of the seaman and boarding-house keeper, appears to have been overlooked. I have to request that the required amendments may be made.

7. The provisions of section 9 must be amended so as strictly to correspond in all respects with the Imperial Act. The same course is necessary with regard to the definition of passenger steamer in section 10 (1),

8. It is doubtful whether it would be proper to enforce the requirements of section 10 (8) b vii., with regard to foreign ships; but subsection 2 declares that in the case of such vessels a survey shall not be required if they have from their own country a certificate equivalent to that required in the case of British ships, and that if a question of sufficiency arises the matter should be referred to the Governor. You will

• No. 8.

+ No. 7.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE | Reference

| COPYBICUT BUNTOCRABU. NOT TA❘