On the question of the application of Chinese laws to foreigners, Mr. Potter had suggested thet it would be those succession, namely, Articles 20 and 21 of the laws in question. He felt they would be very simple laws to enforce, being similar "to. those found in' Italy, Belgium, France and Germany, which hag been enforced in the Courts at Home, That was the law that had to be applied if the Court found that Mr. Hardoon was an Iragian national, Subject to British protection. He was, not prepared to subscribe to Mr. Potter's adage of "Once a British sub-Sect, always a British subject" if by that he meant the Order-in-Council, for there had been cases in which this privilege had been withdrawn, In reply to a question by the Judge as the Court adjourned for luncheon, Mr, Potter said that he would later ask the Court's indulgence when Mr. Reader Harris had finished his address 1S to be permitted to say a few words in order to "reinstate Solomon in all his glory," referring to the case of Solomon.
'With regard to Mr. Potter's contention that the Court' was bound by the Order-in-Council, and could not Ko beyond It to the Treaty between Britain and China, "Mr, Reader Warris drew the Court's attention to the ease of Queen v. Watson, in which the Chief Justice concerned, in his ver- judgment, said that the Order-in-Councit "must be ce-extensive with ithe and limited by the treaty" and that the "proposition is absurd on the face of Ik"
Question of Nationality Turning to the question of nation-expert ality; he said there was no dispute that Mr. Hardoon was not in actual fact a British subject, disregarding the words of the Order-in-Council, and he thought it a fair presumption that the deceased knew this, The whole issue was, what was his Rationality at the time of his death?
Text read from the printed page and cleaned; old type leaves the occasional error.