PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
C.O.885
Reference :-
14 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2
I am not able to rely upon the circumstance which is urged in one of the opinions submitted to me, that the bounty system did not exist when some of the Treaties were entered into. I see a note attached to that opinion that it is not the fact, but if it were the fact, should say that it is immaterial, because, assuming them to be in existence at the time of the entering into the Treaty, in my view the bounty-giving nation was bound, if it observed good faith in carrying out the Treaty into which it entered, to cease doing that which necessarily created an undue preference on its side.
I entirely agree with the American view also that, as a mere measure of self- protection, the countervailing duties are defensible, for in no construction of the Treaty can it be supposed that this country agreed to place its produce at a disadvantage when contracting in terms for equal treatment to all.
House of Lords, July 5, 1899,
HALSBURY.
17410.
IR,
No. 219.
(STRAITS SETTLEMENTS.)
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
*
Royal Courts of Justice, We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. Lucas's letter
July 6, 1899. of the 28th ultimo stating that he was to transmit to us a copy of a despatch from the Governor of the Straits Settlements, dated the 17th May, and covering a statement of a ease under the Straits Ordinance No. 4 of 1888, which raised the question whether the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements on proceedings for a Writ of Habeas Corpus could quash an Order of banishment made by the Governor in Council under Section 3 of the Ordinance if satisfied by the evidence brought before it that the person banished was actually or probably a natural born subject of Her Majesty.
That Mr. Lucas was also to enclose with his letter a copy of the Ordinance, and also a copy of the enclosures of the despatch mentioned in the fourth paragraph of the despatch under consideration, from which it would be observed that a case had recently occurred of a person of Chinese nationality fraudulently claiming to be a British subject born in Singapore, for the purpose of obtaining protection from Her Majesty's Consulate at
Swatow.
That Mr. Lucas was to request us to take the papers into our consideration, and to favour you with our opinion upon the following points
1. Whether the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements had power, on being satisfied that the person against whom an Order of banishment had been made was a natural born subject of Her Majesty, to quash an Order of banishment made by the Governor in Council under Section 3 of Ordinance No. 4 of 1888, or to enquire into the grounds upon which the decision of the Governor in Council was arrived at.
2. Whether it was desirable that Section 3 of the Ordinance should be amended :— (a) by including within its scope all persons who, though born in Her Majesty's dominions, were yet regarded by any Foreign Power with the assent of Her Majesty's Government as subjects of that Power; or (b) by providing that the decision of the Governor in Council, that a person was not a natural born British subject, should be måde final for the purposes of the Ordinance.
3. And generally.
We have taken the papers into our consideration, and in obedience to your commands have the honour to
Report-
THAT (1) in our opinion the Supreme Court of the Straits Settlements has power on Habeas Corpus to enquire into the question whether the person named in the Order is a natural born subject, and to set him at liberty if he is. The power conferred on the Governor by Ordinance No. 4 of 1888 can be exercised only in case of persons who are not natural born subjects of Her Majesty. person is a natural born subject of Her Majesty would lie upon him, but if he shows The burden of proving that such that he is, the Court would have power to set him at liberty on Habeas Corpus.
(2) We do not think that an amendment of the Ordinance, by including within its scope persons born in Her Majesty's dominions who are regarded by any Foreign Power, with the assent of Her Majesty's Government, as would be desirable, or would work satisfactorily in practice, and we do not recommend a subject of that Power, that any such change should be made. If it is desirable as a matter of policy to provide against the interference of the Courts with the action of the Executive in this matter, we think the proper course is to strike out Clause VII. of the Ordinance and to substitute a clause providing that the Order shall be conclusive in all Courts and for all purposes that the person named is not a natural born British subject.
We have, &c.,
RICHARD E. WEBSTER. ROBERT B. FINLAY.
The Right Honourable J. Chamberlain, M.P.,
&c.
&c..
3260-25-7.99 Wc 439
D&S