CO129-383 - Public Offices - 1911 — Page 40

(Jenkyns p.31) and if I am right in my last proposition

then he carries with him the right to associate with

others in forming a company. The fact that there is no

such registry in China alone precludes them, and I do

not see that it is more unconstitutional that the

registration should be done in Shanghai than in London.

Let the Shenghai registry if necessary be under the

Registrar of Companies, If it is illegal that a

British Company heving its sole place of business in China

should be formed to carry on business solely in China,

such companies registered in Hongkong are condemned as

well, whilst as Act of Parliament can cure the illegality

whilst an act of the Hongkong legislature cannot. In

view of the large amount of capital so invested, some

£12,000,000, such an act would under such circumstances

seem imperative.

+

I have dealt with the French law and I will algo

refer to the German law Art. 187 190, to show that it

also regards the formation of a company as the act of

its founders, surely our law of 1862 the fore-runner of

all these codes cannot be held to be bound by the

trammels of ancient law which it seens at least implicitly

to have cast aside. If not then it should follow that

as the French and Germans allow the formation of joint

stock companies in China so should we.

II.

There remains the alternative proposition that

Hongkong should continue to create companies which are

to carry on their business entirely outside the Colony. Sir F. Pizzott deals with the duties of the executive in such matters in his judgment which has so often been referred to. In his opinion such companies ought not

to be registered under the existing law; I think he is right in this, but the proposals made to get over the

39

May