A
524
Company* was framed with a view to Article 10 of
the order-in-Council and that Article 15 is only
intended to refer to China Companies and to Hongkong
Companies carrying on part of their business in
China,
Furthermore there is express provison in
the thina (Amendment) Order-in-Council 1913 as to
what a Home Company carrying on part of its business
in China is required to do, and it would not appear
that these requirements are intended to be inter-
ferred with by the article in question, If the
intention had been to change these requiremts it
would surely have been done by express words.
Everything in the order-in-"ouncil of 1915
and the ordinance of 1915 and in the "Objects and
Reasons" published in the Hongkong lovernment Gazette
at the time the Ordinance of 1915 was passed is con-
sistent with the theory that there was no intention
whatever to alter the obligations of liome companies
carrying on business in China, except as appears in
Article 10 of the order-in-Council 1915, and I submit
that the "Objects and Reasons* indicate clearly that
the intention was simply to give to the Supreme Court
for China the same jurisdiction in China over Companies
registered under the Ordinance which the Supreme Court
of Hongkong had over such Companies in Hongkong before
they were divided into "Hongkong" and "China" Companies
In conclusion, I beg to point out that juris-
diction over Home Companies carrying on business in
China is given to the bupreme Court for China by the
order-