>
543
14. (1).
T think this explanation may be accepted .
14. (8). I have no further remarks.
19. (5). I do not find th t my observations on this sub-section have been dealt with.
33.
I do not find that the remarks para.6 ±11
3/00
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 o`servations in paragraph 5 of the Colonial Office letter of 12th April 1901 to Sir HI.B.Blake have been dealt with. The same remarks apply
to the observations in paragraphs 9, 11 and 12.
Hy 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 con- ceded that there may be local reasons for savetioning 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 allow-
ing 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 per- sons who are not British subjects (see Section 3 (2b))
should be allowed to fly the British flag and it is for consideration whether if there he a Hong Kong flag the difficulty might not be got over by allowing those ves-
sels to fly that flag though it will probably he felt
that the Home Government would have eventually to extend
the same protection to that flag that they extend to
the British flag.
Having
4
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.