2
Order constituting a breach of contract of service, which was an offence against the local law, an offence punishable under the Order, and that if this were done the object desired by the Governor of the Straits, and the Sultan of Kedah might, in the case of British subjects, be obtained through the machinery of the Fugitive Offenders' Act.
That by 37 & 38 Vict. c. 38, orimes and offences committed at any place in the Malayan Peninsula extending southward from the ninth degree of north latitude (which includes Kedah) by British subjects were cognisable in the criminal courts of the Colony, but it was presumed that, having regard to section 33 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, the existence of this jurisdiction would not preclude the rendition of
a British subject to Kedah under that Act.
Mr. Fairfield was to request that we would favour you with our opinion upon the following questions:
1. Whether it would be proper to amend the Straits Extradition Order in Council, 1889, so as to empower the Governor of the Straits Settlements to surrender to the authorities of Kedah persons accused or convicted of having committed in Kedah a breach of contract of service, which, if committed in the Colony, would be an offence punishable with fine or imprisonment or both?
2. Whether the rendition from the Colony to Kedah of persons who commit in Kedah a breach of contract of service which is punishable by the law of Kedah, and which, if committed in the Colony, would be punishable by the law of the Colony, could be obtained under the Fugitive Offenders' Act, 1881.
(1.) As the law now stands?
(2.) If a regulation were made under Article 84 of the Siam Order in Council con-
stituting such breach of contract an offence against that Order?
(3.) Whether such a regulation could properly be made.
(4.) Whether in any other manner the extradition desired by the Governor of the
Straits and the Sultan of Kedah can be effected.
We have taken the matter into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to
Report-
1. That there are, in our opinion, objections to dealing with the question raised as a matter of extradition.
The offences are not of the serious character which usually form the subject of extradition arrangements, and the relations which exist between Great Britain and Siam under the Order in Council of the 28th November 1889, make it better to deal with the matter, so far as British subjects are concerned, under the Foreign Jurisdic- tion Act. If the matter were dealt with as one of extradition, it would not be confined to British subjects, and it might be impracticable to secure that the native courts in Kedah did not deal with the fugitives surrendered to them in a manner which would be regarded in this country as cruel and barbarous. Apparently all practical purposes will be served by dealing with the case of British subjects in Kedah.
2. As the law now stands, persons guilty of the offences in question could not be properly dealt with, or handed to the authorities of Kedah, but if a proper regulation were made under Clause 84 of the Siam Order in Council, such breach of contract would be made an offence against the Order, and offenders being British subjects could then be handed back under the powers of Clause 57 for trial in the British courts in Kedah under the Siam Order in Council.
3 and 4. In our opinion such a regulation may properly be made.
The Right Hon. Joseph Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
19347.
MY LORD,
WE
letter of the developmen -We have 1 commande,
That in o of itself con with any c Cyprus.
"It puts a
to bo selecte law is fairly the selectio
regard to ca Of course firms becau
of our Trea
No doubt
of giving in could not be nation claus conditions conditions b to supply e
The poss
purpose of foreign nati favoured-na mining whe doubt that would not c
us between
requirement
all countries
The Marc
&c.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
⚫ 90336.-