[ { "id": 441459, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-397 - Public Offices & Others - 1912", "page_number": 223, "title": "CO129-397 - Public Offices & Others - 1912", "content_text": "## Referees \n\nGive the names and addresses of two referees. They should be responsible persons who know you well, either in private life or professionally; and one at least should be well acquainted with you in private life. \n\n1. Name: Turr Sprigg \n Address: 6, Gloucester Road, Kempton Hill, Bury \n Occupation: Private Life \n\n2. Name: Thos Hope Pochin \n Address: 25, Stockwell Park Crescent, Vauxhall \n Occupation: Hospital Nurse \n\n(COPY) \n\n## Testimonials. \n\nGive the name, address, and occupation of the writer of each of your testimonials. Copies certified by the Colonial Nursing Association must be sent for record in the Colonial Office. The Copies may be either in MS. or in print; and it is desirable, though not absolutely necessary, that they should be on foolscap paper not larger than this form. \n\n| No. | Name | Address | Occupation |\n|----|------|---------|------------|\n| 1 | Ralph Vincent, Esq. M.D., B.S., M.R.C.P. | Vincent Square, S.W. & Infant Hospital, Kandahar Barracks, N.S.W. & Dries Worthington, Mansion | Pension Physician |\n| 2 | Anise How. Lady Susk | Earl Maplath East London Hospital for Children, Shadwell, E. | |\n| 3 | Drise Scorch | Royal Victoria Hospital, Bournemouth. 1, Harley Street, W. | |\n\nMiss Everingham has been Night Superintendent at the Infants Hospital for the past eighteen months. She has discharged the duties belonging to this responsible position in an extremely satisfactory manner and has shown herself to be a thoroughly competent hospital Sister. She is much liked by the Nurses and she has been singularly successful in maintaining the efficient working of the Hospital while avoiding anything harsh or arbitrary in dealing with her subordinates. \n\nI have much pleasure in recommending Miss Everingham as a lady who is thoroughly capable and who is in every way well fitted to hold a position of responsibility on the Nursing Staff of a hospital. \n\nNov. 15th, 1911. \n(signed) Ralph Vincent, M.D., B.S., M.R.C.P. \nSenior Physician and Director of the Research Laboratory, The Infants Hospital.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-397 - Public Offices & Others - 1912.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 443744, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8]", "page_number": 182, "title": "CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8]", "content_text": "## CONFIDENTIAL\n\n(10226.) \n[20201]\n\nSir,\n\nWe have the honour to report that the illness of one of the members of the Committee and the enforced absence on sick leave of another member have compelled the Committee to adjourn its meetings until the autumn.\n\nThough some progress has been made with the investigation of the subject referred to the Committee, it has been impossible to complete the work, and we therefore think that it will be convenient that we should submit this interim report covering a memorandum embodying the conclusions to which, as at present advised, we have been led.\n\nUp till now we have dealt only with papers and information laid before us relating to Turkey. We are informed that the questions arising in China are as difficult and as acute as those in Turkey, and that in the former country it is complicated by the need of further measures of control over the operations of British companies. As this further question of control may entail careful investigation in China, we think it convenient that you should be in possession of our views based on the data at present before us, in order that information may be obtained as to how the recommendations embodied in our memorandum would meet the requirements of China.\n\nWe shall be in a position to pursue our investigation of the subject when such information is available.\n\nIt may also be useful to obtain the opinions of consular officers of experience in Turkey on our recommendations.\n\nWe have, &c.\n\nC. J. B. Hurst. \nH. A. Payne. \nH. Fountain. \nThos. Worthington.\n\nThe Right Hon. Sir E. Grey, K.G., Bart., M.P. \n&c. \n&c. \n&c.\n\n### INTERIM REPORT\n\nThe committee were appointed to consider the principles which should be followed with regard to granting or withholding diplomatic protection abroad to companies incorporated in the British Empire.\n\nIn many cases, particularly in countries where Great Britain possesses extra-territorial rights, the ease with which a group of foreigners can incorporate a company in Great Britain, or in any colony which has adopted the English company law, enables local or other foreign subjects to convert their businesses into British limited liability companies and then claim, on account of the British nationality so gained by such companies, to receive protection against the local authorities and to secure the immunity from local taxation and local jurisdiction which foreign nationality affords in such countries.\n\nIt has for many years been the practice of the Foreign Office to go behind the British nationality, which incorporation in the British Empire conferred upon a company, and to grant or withhold diplomatic protection according as investigation showed that the interests which the company represented were really British (see reports of the Law Officers dated the 6th December, 1895), but no hard-and-fast line as to the principles on which such protection should be granted or withheld has ever...\n\n## \n6 \n\nso far as circumstances admit, within the limits of this Order.\n\n16. All fees prescribed by or under the Ordinance which are paid to the Registrar of Companies at Shanghai shall be paid by him to the Colonial Treasurer at Hong Kong.\n\n17. Nothing in this Order shall prejudice or affect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court over British Companies other than China Companies and Hong Kong Companies within the meaning of this Order.\n\n18. This Order shall come into effect on...\n\nAnd the Right Honourable Sir Edward Grey, Baronet, K.G., one of His Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, is to give the necessary directions herein.\n\n[This Document is the Property of His Britannic Majesty's Government.]\n\n**CONFIDENTIAL.**\n\n(10226.) \n[20201]\n\n## INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE PROTECTION OF BRITISH COMPANIES ABROAD\n\n175 \nForeign Office, April 29, 1913.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 443746, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8]", "page_number": 184, "title": "CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8]", "content_text": "## \nWe believe that the above principles, if adopted, would in the great majority of cases afford a satisfactory working rule on which the diplomatic or consular representatives of this country might safely be instructed to act, but exceptional cases are certain to arise, and therefore liberty should be reserved to the Secretary of State to depart from the above rules in cases where he thinks it necessary, and the diplomatic and consular representatives should be directed to refer to the Secretary of State for his instructions any case where, in their opinion, the adoption of the above rule would work substantially against British commercial or other interests.\n\nCompulsory registration at the consulates of companies carrying on business in the Ottoman Empire was established by articles 163-170 of the Ottoman Order in Council, 1910. We are informed that this registration was instituted for administrative purposes, and has no necessary connection with diplomatic protection, but it serves a very useful purpose in securing information upon which the decision as to the grant of diplomatic protection can be based, and we therefore recommend that the system should be extended to all countries where His Majesty exercises extraterritorial jurisdiction, and that a corresponding system of voluntary registration should be introduced in all other foreign countries.\n\nWhen in such other countries a company which has not registered itself applies for diplomatic protection, it should be required to do so, and to furnish the same documents and information as is required from British companies in a country where registration is compulsory.\n\nWe also recommend that, in addition to the documents required to be filed under the articles of the Order in Council above referred to, there should be filed annually a list of the names and addresses of the directors, specifying their nationality and the number of shares they hold.\n\n## Annex\n\n**C. J. B. HURST** \n**H. A. PAYNE** \n**II. FOUNTAIN** \n**THOS. WORTHINGTON** \n\n## Memorandum by Mr. Payne (Companies Department, Board of Trade) as to the Registration in England of Companies for the purpose of carrying on Business in Foreign Countries under Foreign Control\n\nThe present practice of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies is, with certain exceptions which are not material to the present question except in one case referred to below, to register any company, provided that the papers are in proper form and do not disclose any illegal objects. In the case of a company, the objects of which include the acquisition or ownership of ships, the application for registration is brought to the notice of the Board of Trade by the registrar if the application appears to be made on behalf of foreigners or if the documents disclose any probability of a contravention of section 1 of `The Merchant Shipping Act, 1894`, the effect of which is to require that a body corporate must be established under and subject to the laws of some part of His Majesty's dominions, and must have its principal place of business in those dominions to be capable of owning a British ship.\n\nIt is stated in Lord Justice Buckley's book on `The Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908`, 9th edition, p. 4, that to be capable of registration here the company must be one which contemplates management and business in this country, and the case of `General Company for the Promotion of Land Credit` (5 Ch. 363, L.R. 5 H.L., 176) is quoted as an authority for the statement. In that case the company was one which embraced very general objects, some of which might possibly have been, but were not in fact, carried on in this country. Its directors were all foreigners, although one gave an English address, and the articles of association contained provisions for the issue of share warrants to bearer, which were not contemplated by the company law of this country at the time the company was registered.\n\nThe question for decision in the case was whether a winding-up order could be made against the company on the ground that it was just and equitable that it should be wound up, and it was held that such an order could be made. It was not necessary to decide the question as to whether the registration of the company was legitimate, and no decision on the point was given, although some expressions which were used in the course of the judgments suggest that the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies might have refused to grant a certificate of incorporation. The strongest expression of this kind in the judgments in the House of Lords was used by Lord Cairns in the following sentence:— \n\n\"It is not necessary to decide that, but it appears to me that the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies might well have refused to grant a certificate of incorporation upon the score of the irregularity which I have mentioned in the articles of association.\"\n\nThe irregularity referred to related to the provisions in the articles for the issue of bearer shares and not to the fact that the company was foreign in its nature.\n\nOn the other hand, Lord Hatherley in his judgment stated that, so far as the memorandum of association went, there did not appear to him to be anything on the face of the memorandum which prevented the company being registered under the Act of Parliament because it was in the form prescribed, signed by the number of persons prescribed, and stating the number of shares which they held; and the mere circumstance that the seven persons who applied for the registration lived at Brussels would not in itself necessarily operate to prevent the operations of the company from being carried on in England, if such were the object and purport of the association. He further said that, on the facts in the particular case, he thought for the registrar to decline to register the company would have been a very hazardous course for him to take, and one which at all events he was not called upon to take.\n\nIn the most recent textbook on companies, `Stiebel's Company Law and Precedents`, it is submitted that, notwithstanding the case of General Company for the Promotion of Land Credit, it is perfectly competent for a company which has no intention of carrying on business here, but intends to carry on and manage its business entirely abroad, to register here, and it is stated that this view has been taken in the cases of `Capital Fire Insurance Association` (1882, 21 C.D., 209) and `Attorney-General v. Jewish Colonisation Association` (1901, 1 K.B., 130).\n\nThe first of the two cases cited is not a satisfactory authority, for at the time of registration the company had apparently a bona fide intention to carry on business in this country, although after registration the actual business of the company was in fact carried on abroad. There were also English as well as foreign directors.\n\nThere is no direct decision on the point in `Attorney-General v. Jewish Colonisation Association`, which dealt with a question of death duties. In that case the company had, besides its registered office in England, offices in Paris, with branches at St. Petersburgh and Buenos Ayres. The general and extraordinary meetings of the company were held in London. By the articles of association, the affairs and business of the company were to be under the general control of a council of administration, the meetings of which council were to be held at such places in Europe as the council should determine. The whole of the business of the company was transacted by the council in Paris. The books of the company, other than the register of members, were kept in the offices in Paris, St. Petersburgh, and Buenos Ayres, according to French methods and in the French language, and the common seal of the company was kept at its principal office in Paris. The following passage may be cited from the judgment of A. L. Smith, M.R.:— \n\n\"That it is an English company I do not doubt, subject to English law, and the fact that there was a council of administration which carried on the business of the company outside of England does not, in my judgment, render the company any the less an English company and subject to English law.\"\n\nIt is accordingly suggested that it is at least doubtful whether the statement in Buckley that to be capable of registration here a company must be one which contemplates management and business in this country could be upheld.\n\nIt may also be pointed out that the law, as stated in Buckley, does not depend in any way on the nationality of the directors or shareholders of the company, and it seems clear that this question is not material, except possibly as evidence of where the management of the company would be. The result would accordingly be, if the statement in Buckley is correct, that it would not be possible for a body of Englishmen living in Constantinople to register an English company under their management for the purpose of carrying on business in Turkey.\n\nIn one case of a shipping company, which was referred to the Board of Trade by the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies because the papers appeared to disclose that...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-402 - Governor Sir May - 1913 [7-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 446054, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-407 - Public Offices & Others - 1913", "page_number": 34, "title": "CO129-407 - Public Offices & Others - 1913", "content_text": "C.O.\n\n1362\n\n13 JANUARY!\n\nCommercial Intelligence Branch,\n\nBoard of Trade,\n\n33\n\nว\n\n(Copy) C.I.B. 24913.\n\n73, Basinghall Street, E.C.,\n\n4th December, 1912.\n\nGentlemen,\n\nI beg to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 25th November with reference to the sale of cheap brands of whisky in Hong Kong.\n\nIn reply I would point out that the Merchandise Marks Act of Hong Kong is practically identical with the Merchandise Marks Act of the United Kingdom, and that if the whisky to which you refer contravenes that Act, which you infer, it should be possible for your agents in Hong Kong to take the necessary legal action in the matter.\n\nI am, Gentlemen,\n\nYour obedient Servant, (sgd) THOS. WORTHINGTON.\n\nMessrs. Slater, Rodger & Co., Ltd.,\n\nGlasgow.\n\nvas.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-407 - Public Offices & Others - 1913.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 460339, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-431 - Governor Sir May - 1916 [1-2]", "page_number": 472, "title": "CO129-431 - Governor Sir May - 1916 [1-2]", "content_text": "72\n\nFrom the foregoing it will be seen that my Committee do not feel that they can recommend the Members of this Branch to forego their legal rights, but they consider that having this valued expression of opinion of His Majesty's Minister should be sufficient for each merchant to act according to his own judgment and discretion.\n\nSir E. D. H. Fraser, K.C.M.G.,\n\nH.M. Consul-General,\n\nI have, etc.\n\nH. A. J. MACRAY,\n\nVice-Chairman,\n\nChina Association, to Foreign Office.\n\nChina Association,\n\n99, Cannon Street, E.C.,\n\n1st February, 1915.\n\n73\n\nGermany being held to be \"Agents,\" it would appear that German firms in China which have no head office in Germany are in a preferential position as compared with the firms which are held to be Agents.\n\nMy Committee are of opinion that the present position of this question is unsatisfactory, as it is left to the discretion and patriotism of individual British merchants either to enter into transactions with, at any rate, some \"enemy\" firms, or to forego their legal rights and eschew all transactions with the enemy. In view of the expression of opinion of His Majesty's Government that such transactions are undesirable, the latter course will no doubt be acted upon in the majority of cases, but my Committee consider that it would be preferable if all transactions with all \"subjects\" in China during the war were formally prohibited. It would, however, be necessary that effective co-operation on exactly the same lines should be secured on the part of our French, Japanese, and Russian Allies.\n\nI have, &c.,\n\nH.M. Under Secretary of State\n\n(Signed) F. ANDERSON,\n\nfor Foreign Affairs,\n\nChairman.\n\nForeign Office, Downing Street.\n\nSIR,\n\nThe Committee of this Association have had under further consideration the position of British subjects in relation to trading with the enemy.\n\nI have the honour to enclose copy of a Memorandum on this subject, from which it would appear that transactions between British subjects in the United Kingdom and in China, and subjects of the enemy in China are legally permissible, although the Board of Trade Notice of 31st December states that, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, such transactions are undesirable.\n\nIt is, however, clearly laid down that it is illegal for British subjects to enter into transactions with any person or body of persons resident or carrying on business in \"enemy\" countries, or with the Agents in China of any such person or body of persons, if the transaction is in effect one with the head office.\n\nThe principal German firms in China are undoubtedly branches of their head offices in Germany; there is little doubt that the main portion of their capital is derived from Germany, and that their trading profits are, to a great extent, for account of those head offices, so that it may be said that all transactions entered into by them are transactions \"in effect with their head offices\" and are therefore prohibited.\n\nIn the Notice issued by the Board of Trade on the 31st December, it is, however, definitely stated that transactions between British traders in the United Kingdom and in China with \"enemy\" firms commercially domiciled in China are not expressly prohibited.\n\nIn the event of branches of German firms whose head offices are in Germany...\n\nBoard of Trade (Commercial Intelligence Department) to China Association, London.\n\nCommercial Intelligence Branch, Board of Trade,\n\n73, Basinghall Street, London, E.C.\n\n2nd January, 1915.\n\nPermit me to call your attention to the Notice (copy enclosed) which appeared on page 891 of the Board of Trade Journal for 31st December, regarding Commercial Relations with Enemy Traders in China.\n\nI am, &c,\n\nTHOS. WORTHINGTON,\n\nDirector.\n\nA 10\n\n469", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-431 - Governor Sir May - 1916 [1-2].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]