that you will move Lord
Lord Stanley
to have
the goodness to favour Lord Aberdeen
with his opinion
as to the Instructions
which, upon consideration of what
is suggested in my
other Letter and
in the report of the Law Officers, he
may
consider it advisable should
be addressed to Sir Henry Pottinger
James, Sir,
Your most obedient
humble Servant
A. d'A.
W. Nope.
See N° 202. For the
reasons assigned.
stant Letter and in this, it is clear that no
this problem is to be found.
purist solution
to
we do so we must expect and submit to be done by. British
to the Chinese jurisdiction
Subjects sojourning
their ports.
so we must allow
over Chinese
by
the Chinese to deny our jurisdiction: Subjects sojourning in Hong Kong. British Judges try British Offenders at Canton, therefore at Hong Kong Chinese Judges must.
try my Chinese Offender, British Law is enforced at Canton by the British Judge. Chinese Law must be enforced at Hong Kong by the British Judge.
But the Crown Lawyers
would no doubt
Lord Aberdeen would
distinguish between the case of crimes committed by settled Inhabitants
who had
will
not and
who had not domiciled there. It is
proposed to accomplish this in way
under certain
to exclude
any
Chinese from being induced to renounce their allegiance to the Emperor
the effect of rendering
which of the Treaty
(as it can be supposed) pretension of the Chinese Court to interfere about them. Or it is proposed that the Chinese at Hong Kong should continue to live under Chinese Law, the Native population of
Calcutta live under Hindu Mohammedan Law - the Chinese Law being administered at least at first by Judges selected or recommended by the Emperor.
This last adjusting
the whole question. I think that the distinction between alien and domiciled Inhabitants might
will be laid out of account, Chinese cases dealt with
and
that
every
committing a crime at Hong Kong would be
subjecting him to a Chinese Tribunal as then Established. His
easy enough to suggest difficulties
any
other
arrangement of such a question. But I