legitimate. That part of it which the Attorney- General had claimed to be objectionable, he sub mitted, only referred to such Chiness who might have takon service under the French, and be on board their ships. The proclamation alluded to those, and to such as rendered assistance in the way of repairs to their ships, and the incitement to kill any French commander must be taken to apply to those who had taken service with the French, who were threatened with punishment if they did not return to loyalty, and pro- mised forgiveness for their past offences, and offered rewards if they succeed in doing this. However revolting it might be to think of such a thing being done, it was not out of accordance with the usages of war of a civilised nation. For instance, if two European powers were at war, and a subject of one power took service on board au enemy's ship, and then sacrificed his life and that of the whole ship's company by blowing the vessel up, he would be considered a hero, and the Chinese authorities were fully justified in inciting their subjects to similar acts. The proclamation urged them to outdo each other în deeds of loyalty and heroism, and there was not one word in it which should necessarily be construed as being intended to incite the Chinese of the colony to commit murder in the streets. This proclamation was published by the defondant simply in the course of his duty of providing information to the public, and he (Mr. Francis) would submit that the only reasonable interpre- tation of it was as he had just put it. The objects of the proclamation were perfectly legitimate, and therefore the defendant was fully justified in publishing it. Mr, Francis also called attention to the fact that though the proclama- tion threatened punishment to those who assisted the French against the Chinese, it offered to those who did nothing against the French-there was no punishment for pot doing any of the things thy proclamation suggested,
Tas Attorney Genaral” replied upon the de- lease, and he pointed quijthat though po puntalį, mant was threatened to those who did not do what the proclamation incited them to do, it offered rewards to those who did. With the bearing of this proclamation upon people outside this colony he had nothing to do, nor with what was justifiable in case of war. The point for the jury to consider was whether this proclamation did not incite the Chinese here to commit the crime of murder in this colony. He submitted that that was the reasonable interpretation to be put upon it, and the one which would be put upon it by the Chinese who read the defendant's paper.
His Lordship summed up the case to the jury, and in the course of his remarks he said it was important it should be understood that there was but one Government in this colony, and neither the French nor the Chinese Govern- ments had any right to diotate to those
living here beyond calling upon such of their subjects as might be here to return, and to threaten them with punishment for disobedience when they did return. No China- man here, even although in doing so he might be carrying out the dictates of the Chinese au- thorities, had any right to interfere with another. His Lordship, having made these observations by way of parenthesis, went on to explain the law of the case. If the jury thought the pr clamation should only be taken to apply in the way Mr. Francis had asked them to construit, then the prisoner was not guilty, but if they considered reasonable interpretation of it was the Attorney-General had suggested. he was guilty. He was glad to know that the proclama- tion had been disapproved of by the bighost Chinese authorities, but however much they might disapprove of it, and stigmatie it as against civilisation, it did not necessarily follow that the publication of it had rendered the de- fendant responsible to the law.
The jury immediately returned a verdict of not guilty.
58
3 Z