las
機
difficulty go perilously near the unconstitutional act of a colony legislating for persons beyond its own limits (Jenkyns "Rritish rule and jurisdiction beyond the seas" pp.26 et seqq.) Anson's "Law and Custom
of the constitutions" Vol.II Ft.II 0.77. It is
very doubtful whether the Hongkong Courts could exercise criminal jurisdiction under their ordinance when the criminal acts are committed in China, Macleod v.
Attorney General for New South Wales (1891 A.Č. 455). It is I think quite clear that Hongkong can only legislate for its own companies end its legislature rev require its companies to do certain acts within the Colony. e.g. keep a registered office, make returns, or pay certain dues, but it will require an Act of Parliament
or at least on Order in council to make Hongkone law
applicable to British subjects in Ching, and I doubt
the possibility of so legislating by Order in Council if
the Colonial ordinance is vicious in its inception in
that it legislates for persons and matters beyond the
territorial limits of the Colony. Sir P. Piggottsays
in his judgment "if the ordinance had authorised the
registration of Shanghai Companies, and had extended the
jurisdiction of the Court to them or if a special
jurisdiction had been given to the Shanghai Court, that
would have been another matter", These two are, I
submit, things which the Hongkong legislature cannot do.
It seems to me therefore that assuming the second course
outlined in only earlier papers to be that pdcpted, it
will be necessary to exclude from the Hongkong ordinance
provisions which are ultra vires and to supply such as
may be necessary by Order in Council. The object,
however, when all is said and done, is to provide a scheme
which will allow the creation of British joint stock
companies to be managed and to do their business
exclusively in Chine, and that such companies should not
40
7