!
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 8
.885
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
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, crimes 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.,
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
19347.
No. 116.
(CYPRUS.)
LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.
MY LORD,
Royal Courts of Justice, September 3, 1896. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Curzon's letter of the 14th ultimo, relative to a proposed legislative measure to provide for the development and improvement of the silk industry in Cyprus.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your Lordship's commands, have the honour to
Report-
That in our opinion the second section of the proposed law as it now stands does not of itself constitute an infraction of the Treaty obligations of Her Majesty's Government with any of the three countries mentioned by the Acting Queen's Advocate in Cyprus.
It puts all foreign countries on precisely the same footing.
Trustworthy firms are
to be selected from whom eggs may be procured for importation into Cyprus. If the law is fairly worked, no advantage will be conferred on one nation beyond another as the selection will be impartially made without regard to nationality and solely with regard to capacity to supply healthy eggs.
Of course, if the law were administered so as to confer a preference on certain foreign firms because they belong to a particular country, this would constitute an infraction of our Treaty obligations with the countries in question.
No doubt the administration of such a law as this might be abused with the object of giving indirectly, by selection of firms, a preference to a particular nation which could not be given directly, and this would constitute an infraction of the most-favoured- nation clause in any Treaty; but we assume that experts in the matter can indicate the conditions which insure that eggs of a suitable quality will be supplied, and, these conditions having been laid down, foreign firms of any nation may be selected as able to supply eggs in accordance with such conditions.
The possibility of such machinery being resorted to by other countries for the purpose of evading their Treaty obligations with us, and the possibility of complaints by foreign nations as to the administration of the law being such as to create a breach of favoured-nation clauses, may be taken into account on the question of policy in deter- ruining whether it is desirable that we should initiate such legislation; but we have no doubt that such a law fairly and impartially administered in the sense we have indicated would not constitute an infraction of Treaty obligations. The preference would not be us between countries, but as between different firms as to their ability to meet the requirements prescribed to insure healthy eggs; the conditions would be the same for ali countries.
The Marquess of Salisbury, K.G.,
&c. &c. &c.
We have, &c.
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
(
&c.
&c.
&c.
90536.-28.
23.-9 96.
}