I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 6th October and 14th October,
573/Confidential, enclosing a copy of a letter from the Consul-General of Canton, the latter enclosing a memorandum on the subject by the Consul-General.
2.- I cannot, of course, enter into a lengthy discussion on a question which is entirely judicial, but I may point out that the Consul-General is embarking upon the very large question of the assumed jurisdiction of the British Courts over non-resident defendants, whether subjects or aliens. That, as I presume the Consul-General is aware, has been the established practice of the Courts for nearly 10 years. The question which the Consul-General raises is whether this practice has been in any way limited in regard to Chinese or any other defendants in China. The Court, certainly since the first Code passed in 1873, and possibly earlier, has been consistently of opinion that there has been no such limitation, and I am of opinion that this is the correct view. I do not propose to alter it; and I may add that any legislative alteration in the sense indicated by the Consul-General would be disastrous to the commerce of the Colony, which already is seriously hampered by the difficulties of executing process against Chinese who abscond to Canton.
3. In my memorandum, I made use of the term "service of writs": I assume, of course, that the Consul-General is familiar with it.
His Excellency
The Governor,
Hongkong.
ir
F
I have the honour to acknowledge
́attern of 6th. October and 14th. October,”
573
of
the Consul-
the issue of a letter of request by this Cou General of Canton, the latter enclosing a memorandum on the subject by the Consul-General.
2.- I cannot of course enter into a lengthy discussion on a question which is entirely judicial, but I may point out that the Consul-General is embarking upon the very largo question of the assumed jurisdiction of the British Courts. over non-resident defendants whether subjects or aliens. That' as I presume the Consul-General is aware, has been the estab- lished practice of the Courts for nearly 10 years. The question which the Consul-General raisos is whether this practice has been in any way limited in regard to Chinese or any other defendants in China. The Court, certainly since the first Code passed in 1873, and possibly earlier, has been consistently of opinion that there has been no such limitation, and I am of opinion that this is the correct view. I do not propose to alter it: and I may add that any legislative alteration in the sense indicated by the Consul-General would be disastrous to the commerce of the Colony, which already is serio sly humpered by the difficulties of cxecuting process against Chinese who abscond to Canton.
3.
#
In my memorandum I made use of the term "sorvice of writs": I assume of course that the Consul-Ceneral is familiar
His Excellency
with
The Governor,
Hongkong.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.