578
vis-à-vis the Chinese Authorities in Canton was a matter on
which the Chief Justice of Hongkong, in his judicial
capacity, competent to decide, that I ventured with extreme
reluctance, fully realising the responsibility I was taking,
to differ with so eminent an authority as Sir Francis Piggott.
As I informed Your Excellency in my last despatch, I
have submitted my action for the consideration of His Majesty's Minister in Peking and under those circumstances I
cannot, even if I wished, continue to discuss this question
with His Honour the Chief Justice.
On one point in His Honour's letter of October 20th,
I will, with Your Excellency's permission, offer an explanation.
I refer to my omission to reply to the Chief Justice's
reference to the case of Watson v. the Tung Kwong Co.
My reasons are, briefly, as follows:-
When the Chief Justice in his memorandum of October
22nd mentioned this case as a precedent for the Attorney-General requesting the Namhoi Magistrate to serve a writ of
summons on a Chinese defendant in Canton, I caused a careful
search to be made in the Chinese archives for a record
of