CO129-437 - Public Offices - 1916 — Page 537

NOORT 4X8

(130260/210/K)

Sir:-

42225

IREC

REG 4 SEP 16

FORZIGH OFFICE

TSEP.1916

535

With reference to your despatch No.89 Foreign Trade,

of May 30th last, with regard to the position of the dritish

American Tobacco Company under the China (Companies}

Order in Council, I am directed by Viscount Grey of Pallo-

don to inform you that he is advised that the Company

in question, being a 3ritish Company but neither a China

nor a Hongkong Company, is not subject to the provisions

of the Crder in Council which relate only to China

Companies, as appears to be suggested in the Crow Advocates

memorandum transmitted in your despatch.

As regards the question put by Mr, Kemett as to

whether under Article 15(1) of the Order in Council

the Company is bound to comply with all the provisions

of the Hongkong Companies Ordinance of 1911 as amended

or only with those contained in Part IX, it appears to

Lord Grey that the latter alternative is correct, as Part

IX contains the conditions which have to be complied with

by such companies (termed "Hone Companies" by Mr. Kennett)

and it appears impossible that the intention of the Order

in Council oan have been to apply to "Home Companies" in

China provisions of the Ordinance which do not apply to ther

in Hongkong, må Mr. Kennett's argument that it would

in fact be impossible for such companies to comply with

these requirements appears to be sound, The point is

Bir E, Fraser K,C,K,0,.

Shanghai.

however