CO129-554-12 Public Reclamations Validation and Clauses Bill (formerly Foreshores Bill) 30-4-1935 - 3-3-1936 — Page 4

4

*

I think Section Dis ywrobably met by the terms } Clause 6.

заашье

Yes I think so

(L.)

memorandum have not been met, particularly objections

Band

B (v. Clause 7(6)), C (v. Clause (3)), E (v. Clause 7(1)) and F (v. Clause 7(4))* In addition

the period during which the notification of an

intended work shall be published and during which

objections may be lodged (Clause 5(1) and (2)) and

compensation claimed (Clause 7(1)) is reduced from

This reducture is, however, justifiable in view of the three months to two. fact that the necessity I pasting

a separate Ind. for each with contemplated gever extra notice. Mr. Gent spoke to me about procedure on

this Bill. In view of the fact that their major

objection has been met, perhaps we need not refer

the revised Bill for the observations of the China

Association.

The Admiralty and the Board of Trade

who raised no objection to the earlier draft are not

likely to question this. Our action therefore may

be confined to sending a copy of (1) and enclosures

to the Foreign Office, reference (37) in 13717/1/33,

pointing out that the objections raised in that

letter have been met by the decision to pass a

separate Ordinance before any new work of the kind

contemplated in the Bill can be undertaken, and say

that, subject to any observations Sir Samuel Hoare

may have on the Bill, it is proposed to authorise

the 0.A.G. to proceed to enact it. This action is,

of course, contingent on Legal Adviser's

observations on the revised draft.

I see

по

18. Poslan

449135

objections to this. As we bed lên Chino Arwen

to send their objections into Hong Kong via the Chawlice of Commerce

(39 prof.) then, I suffore we can

suppose

infer that

Hong Kong has causeidend them, Ido not appely think that injushi wo be done

temic that injusher wo be done by ignoring all

We Jale

of their

5. 1*.