CO885-(10-11) — Page 90

4825.

No. 66.

(BRITISH GUIANA.)

ادهوبا

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O. 885

Reference :-

10 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

J

MY LORD,

1.9.8

וי

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

Doctors' Commons, May 22, 1861. We were honoured with your Lordship's commands, signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 16th April ultimo, in which he stated that with reference to our report of the 31st of July last, transmitting the draft of an Ordinance to be issued by the Legis- lature of British Guians for the extradition of French criminals convicted of certain crimes, who might escape from Cayenne into British Guiana, he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us a printed copy of the Ordinance as it had been passed in the Colony,

Mr. Hammond was pleased to say that on a full consideration of the evils likely to result to the Colony if it became place of refuge for men of desperate character escaping from Cayenne, Her Majesty's Government thought it desirable to extend the operation of the proposed measure to some other offences of the gravest character, in addition to those specified in the Convention with France of 1843.

That in other respects the Ordinance was nearly in the terms of our draft, and the reasons for such variations as had been made therefrom were stated in the report of the Attorney General of British Guiana, enclosed in the letter from the Colonial Office which was transmitted to us.

Mr. Hammond was also pleased to say that he enclosed, for our further information, the correspondence which had taken place on the subject since the matter was last before "whether there u8, and to request that we would report to your Lordship our opinion

16

is any objection to the Ordinance as passed being submitted for Her Majesty's "confirmation.'

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have perused the Ordinance and correspondence submitted to us, and have the honour to

Report

That in accordance with Lord Wodehouse's letter of the 12th of June 1860, we confined the terms of the draft Ordinance, as then prepared by us, to the crimes specified in the treaty with France of 1843, namely, murder, attempt to commit murder, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. Lord Wodehouse stated in effect that both the arrangement and the Ordinance were to be thus limited, and that "arrangements "of an analogous kind had been made at different times between certain of Her Majesty's Colonies in the West Indies and the adjacent republica for the mutual "surrender of criminals.”

We observe that the Ordinance as settled by us bas been altered in the Colony (inter alia) by the addition of the crimes of "arson, rape, burglary, housebreaking, and robbery (comprehending the crimes known in the French penal code as vols avec "violence ou effraction).

<

Thus it will be seen that the above crimes are, although not included in those enumerated in the Convention of 1843, and not the subjects of extradition of persons accused as between France and England, are now to be so treated by the Ordinance as between British and French Guiana with reference to persone convicted.

This will not, in our opinion, affect the legal validity of the Ordinance should it be confirmed by Her Majesty, but as a matter of general principle and as a precedent it may be productive hereafter of some inconvenience.

be

It is also possible that under section 7 of the Ordinance some difficulty may experienced in obtaining complete reciprocity as to these crimes on the part of French Guiana.

We observe that the questionable propriety of extradition for meretheft" has already attracted your Lordship's attention. To the other alterations made by the Colony in our draft Ordinance, we see no serious objection, and under these circum-

• The draft only was transmitted to the Colonial Office without the covering Reporti 16978.-344. 25.-1/86.

Page 90Page 91

stances we must leave the question of the propriety of the confirmation of the Ordinance as it stands (which is rather a question of policy than a legal question) to the final decision of Her Majesty's Government.

The Right Hon. Lord John Russell,

&o.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

J. D. HARDING. RICHARD BETHELL. WM. ATHERTON.

5023.

SIR,

No. 67.

(Hong Kong.)

FOREIGN OFFICE to COLONIAL OFFICE.

Foreign Office, May 31, 1861. I AM directed by Lord John Russell to request that you will state to the Duke of Newcastle for such directions as his Grace may see occasion to give upon the subject, that in a report dated the 26th ultimo, upon the proceedings of Her Majesty's Consular Authorities in Japan in the case of Mr. Michael Moss, the Law Officers observe, with reference to the letter of Mr. Chief Justice Adams enclosed in your letter of the 21st of March,

That "as to the Letters Patent dated the 30th of January 1860, the course (error?) pointed out in the letter of Chief Justice Adams of the 31st of January 1861 ought, we think, to be corrected without delay, and we have no doubt that this will receive "the prompt attention of Her Majesty's Government.

Sir F. Rogers, Bart

&o.

&o.

I am, &o. (Signed)

E. HAMMOND.

1

o 16978-800.

15.-2/86.