CO129-615-9 Crown Lands 12-4-1949 - 28-9-1949 — Page 5

little; ho. 10 resumption.

of 1900 deals with 5 + Sect. 15 of it,

permitting the Governor to

such land"

"m such

such lenno

grant

and either by public austion

private

limited in affect

is therefore

in

any

case

presumably does not rchive

Gov. of obligative

the

under Curt. xull

the Lellis Patent.

No. 34 of 1910,

to

arly to the

des amended, relates only

New Teritoris, & the powers which

be delegated to the Love

may Cofficer

ade

limited &

do not

exppear to extend to the point

issue.

I attach all the

enumerated in

SIR K.O. ROBERTS-WRAY.

document's

at

the preceding minute. BMKishness

3/8

The despatch at (1) refers to difficulties about making dispositions of Crown lands in Hong Kong under Article XIII of the Letters Patent. This is in common form, but I guess that it dates from antiquity, and I find it a little difficult now to say exactly what its effect is. I have had a word with Mr. McPetrie, who (while inserting it in current constitutional documents) has nevertheless from time to time felt some misgivings. I find that the exact point

raised by Hong Kong (except for the minor point about granting permits) was raised by them in 1940, and I attach the papers from which you will see that you were of opinion that the terms of the Clause in the Letters Patent preclude the Colonial Legislature from providing that grants and leases should be executed by someone other than the Governor. I have also found a Law Officers' opinion of 1884 (Vol. 4, No. 19, attached) in which a similar question was dealt with regarding South Australia. I do not entirely understand

The

this opinion, since it seems to depend on the Colonial Legislature being empowered "to regulate the sale and disposal of waste lands of the Crown in the Colony", but there is no such power given in the 1900 South Australia Letters Patent, and unless it was expressly given in the earlier Letters Patent, I do not quite see how it affected the matter. Law Officers in 1884 gave their opinion on a very narrow point since "execution ", in these days anyhow, invariably usually entails signature, and the Governor in person (by Clause 4 of the Hong Kong Letters Patent) is told to keep and use the public Seal of the Colony.

I am reluctant to raise unnecessary points, but I think perhaps it would be useful to consider what really is the contemporary need for and effect of Clause 13 of the Hong Kong Letters Patent, and see whether we ought not to

It may be that it dates from the time when one objects of Colonial settlers was to occupy and

revise it..

of the chief

/cultivate