[ { "id": 227962, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848", "page_number": 266, "title": "CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848", "content_text": "203\n\nis to be provided\" _ that, we have a Capital sum in hand or effectually secured of 1900l. and upwards, and that the Episcopal Committee in the furtherance of Colonial Bishopricks have sanctioned to appropriate from their General Fund the sum of 200l. per annum; which when added to the interest to be derived from the sum of 1900l. with it is hoped will calculated produce an income of or about 1000l. for\n\nin addition to these sums, there is a sum of 2000l. in Land to which an effectual statutory addition at least equal in amount, is to be applied to the creation of a College, where the future Bishop is to be educated and in that House he is to have Residence-\n\nMe unwin\n\nexaminer To The Heath\n\nBy Lord John\n\nLordships obedient Servant\n\nThe Earl Grey\n\nJ. J. Coleridge\n\nW R Hale", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-027 - Public Offices - 1848.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 250408, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-079 - Public Offices - 1860", "page_number": 558, "title": "CO129-079 - Public Offices - 1860", "content_text": "3027\n\nTij hee Court Imple Ang : 1860\n\nEIVED\n\n13 AUG\n\n1860:\n\n556\n\nto forward to you the enclosed copy of the Western Circuit Registry filings for the office of lettering Housing - I regret that countermanding it so urgently prevented me from obtaining it to send it under the same cover with my last note to you, dated 4th inst. I believe the Magistrates are passing letters testimonial from the Acting & Mr Coleridge: Would you be so kind as to inform me whether that note...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-079 - Public Offices - 1860.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 250410, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-079 - Public Offices - 1860", "page_number": 560, "title": "CO129-079 - Public Offices - 1860", "content_text": "B. Ohem Engi\n\nForwardedey 1900\n\nSang Saucers B\n\n1860 AUGE\n\nFortescue\n\nPozz Angiking\n\n...\n\n557\n\nH. RR lung. Co\n\nFam dunited\n\nS\n\nthe\n\nLee. A State to act: the\n\n1\n\nut. I yr.\n\n11th\n\ny\n\nnote of the\n\ntant accompanied\n\ntestimonial in\n\nsuppat of your application for the afferentment q Alter Gud at Hong Kong.\n\nful Kay,\n\nActor?\n\nand I am to inform you\n\nthat your\n\nWelten\n\nthe bb\n\n2\n\nwist with letter unloved.\n\nfrom M. Austin & Coleridge\n\nin\n\nas well as\n\nher\n\npacket of the testimonials\n\nwere also duly received at the office.\n\nS\n\nX", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-079 - Public Offices - 1860.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 268058, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-118 - Public Offices - 1866", "page_number": 38, "title": "CO129-118 - Public Offices - 1866", "content_text": "can take cognizance of a piracy\n\ncommitted in Chinese waters,\n\nIn obedience to your\n\nCommands we have taken these\n\npapers into consideration, and have the honour to Report\n\nThat\n\nof opinion that the Courts of Hong Kong may take cognizance\n\nPiracies committed by British Subjects, (including within that term actual residents within the Colony) in such Chinese Waters, as, according to the cases cited by the Colonial\n\nAttorney General,\n\nwithin the jurisdiction of the Admiralty. (e.g.\n\n12 and 13. Vic. c.\n\ne.g.\n\n2). But the\n\nQueen's Courts have no jurisdiction to try foreigners non-resident within the Queen's dominions, and therefore\n\nowing to not owe temporary Allegiance except for jure gentium - and: in order to constitute this crime, the murder or\n\nrobbery must have been committed on the High Seas.\n\nWe have the honour to be,\n\nSir,\n\nYour most obedient,\n\nhumble Servants\n\nRundell Palmer\n\nJ. T. Coleridge", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-118 - Public Offices - 1866.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 270550, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7]", "page_number": 438, "title": "CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7]", "content_text": "7. Now, a Judgment stands against Mr. POLLARD on the records of the Supreme Court inflicting a fine (a very small one in reference to his position it is true) but so standing, the only way in which the decision can be brought before any superior Judicial Tribunal in the first instance is an appeal upon which a record will be transmitted to and become a record of the Judicial Committee, and upon such a proceeding, and upon such a proceeding only, is it competent for Mr. POLLARD to question my Judgment by Affidavits to be properly sworn and filed in what will then be a Judicial proceeding and on which the Privy Council can advise Her Majesty judicially.\n\n8. This was the course, I believe the only proper course, which I distinctly indicated to Mr. POLLARD, but which he has deliberately declined to adopt.\n\n9. In the interests of the body of Colonial Judges, to which I belong, I must decline to acknowledge Mr. POLLARD's right to adopt any innovation on this settled mode of procedure in these cases, unless His Excellency the Governor or His Grace the Secretary for the Colonies shall request me to adopt any other course.\n\n10. This was the course of proceeding in the case of RAINEY v. The Justices of Sierra Leone, (in 8 Moore's Privy Council Reports 47,) which case I had in my mind in quoting, indeed it was cited in the case of ex parte MCDERMOTT 1 L. R. App., p. 260 (1866) to which I referred in my decision, and it has been, I believe, the course adopted in every other case.\n\n11. With the consent of the Judge appealed against it is competent for the Privy Council to decide the legal question arising on my Judicial decision. There is the more reason why this course should have been adopted because on the 2nd of July, immediately before I gave my decision, Mr. POLLARD said he appeared under protest and denied the power of the Court to proceed at that time and in that manner against him for contempt alleged to have been committed at any time previous to that day. He thereby raised an issue of my legal right to fine, which never having been abandoned by him, remains as a subject for legal decision on appeal.\n\n12. Abandoning his proper course of appeal, Mr. POLLARD has presented a Petition to Her Majesty the Queen which is clearly not a Judicial proceeding, and he has himself deliberately incorporated by reference as an exhibit his Petition into his Affidavit making it thus part of an Affidavit—an illegal Affidavit as will be seen—and he has induced eleven other Gentlemen to make, and they have made Affidavits also illegal. These Affidavits and these only constituting his case. All these Affidavits were sworn before Mr. KAYE, a Justice of the Peace for this Colony.\n\n13. By the 5 and 6 W. 4 c. 62, the Act to make Provision for the abolition of unnecessary Oaths all extra Judicial Oaths except in specified cases (not including the present case) are prohibited, and every Justice is prohibited from receiving any Oath touching a matter whereof he has no jurisdiction. In R. v. Nott Car, and Mar. 288, Mr. Justice COLERIDGE held a Justice guilty of a misdemeanour under this Act, the Jury found that he had inadvertently administered the Oath and the Justice was sentenced to One Month's imprisonment. The case was afterwards discussed in the Queen's Bench in R. v. Nott, 4 Q. B. 768 and in 19 Law Jour, N. S. Mag., cases 143 and there at p. 146 Lord DENMAN said \"a mock tribunal might be erected without any real jurisdiction, before which the character of an individual might be ruined without redress\" were such a course to be allowed. That this is the Law of England appears clearly in 3 Rus. on Crimes pp. 113, 114.\n\n14. It appears therefore clearly the Law of England, that the taking and administering extra Judicial Oaths as in this case is illegal and criminal in England, and it is clear that this Law was brought to this Colony on its foundation with the rest of the then Law of England, then applicable.\n\n15. I object to Mr. POLLARD's documents therefore:\n\nFirst. Because appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council was the appropriate and only appropriate remedy where there would be a record to be referred to, even if it should decide that it had no authority to adjudicate and if and when the Secretary of State might ask its advice subsequently.\n\nSecondly. Because Mr. POLLARD and all who have made Affidavits, which include the whole of his Petition to Her Majesty, have made Affidavits which are illegal and criminal acts, and such illegal Affidavits no one can legally recognise or look into for any purpose.\n\n16. On Saturday morning the 20th instant just after I had sent to find out the statute, which turns out to be the 5 and 6 W. 4 c. 62, above referred to, Mr. WHYTE came into my Chambers, almost immediately after I had risen from the Criminal Court, in reference to a Bankruptcy case, and I then pointed out to Mr. WHYTE the illegality of the Affidavits being made. He at once intimated that he had been afraid they were illegal and that he had so told Mr. POLLARD, but that Mr. POLLARD had thought otherwise and had proceeded. I also mentioned to Mr. WHYTE the case above referred to in 8 Moore's Privy Council Reports, and I further told him that in my opinion the only course to initiate future proceedings was by a motion for leave to appeal and I begged him to communicate these objections to Mr. POLLARD. Mr. WHYTE then told me that Mr. POLLARD was going in the afternoon to England via Calcutta in the Reiser, but that he would see him and communicate to him what I had said, that if, before he left, he would move for leave to appeal, I would give leave, which was all that would be necessary to initiate properly legal proceedings.\n\n17. I waited for Mr. WHYTE's return at my Chambers. He did return and informed me that he had communicated what I had said to Mr. POLLARD who declined to avail himself of my offer or to vary his proceedings.\n\n18. It is clear, therefore, that:\n\nFirst. Being apprised of its illegality, Mr. POLLARD deliberately proceeded by Petition to Her Majesty, made by reference part of an Affidavit, and verified by other Affidavits.\n\nSecond. Having had the regular course by appeal pointed out by me, first on the Second of July, and secondly, through Mr. WHYTE, he deliberately abandoned his only legal remedy.\n\nThird. That in this state of things, Mr. POLLARD's Petition is, with his knowledge, illegal.\n\nAnd I submit that Mr. POLLARD has no right to raise any question in respect of my decision and the fine of $200 except and unless it be in and through and after an appeal so regularly made as I have pointed out.\n\n19. I would only add that if for any purpose whatever, Mr. POLLARD's documents should be looked into, it should be borne in mind that the Affidavits were sworn fourteen, seventeen, and nineteen days after the occurrences respectively and that the only public contemporary records of what occurred on the 27th and the 20th of June, and the 2nd of July, are to be found in the China Mail published on the evenings of these days and in the Daily Press in the mornings, next after each of these days. These may have been colored by hostility to me or by partiality and friendship for Mr. POLLARD; but even these when checked each by the other will show that the language and conduct of Mr. POLLARD were not of the mild and respectful character which at this distance of time, the gentlemen making Affidavits may think and state them to have been and they sustain I think in the main what I said on the 2nd of July.\n\nMy Judgment which appears in these Newspapers was prepared immediately after the occurrences and was ready for delivery on the 1st of July and it is therefore almost equally contemporary. I feel that from the above reports and otherwise the facts I have stated can be sustained.\n\n20. I may be allowed to state that after a long and not unsuccessful practice at the Equity Bar in England without a difference with either a Judge or Barrister, I was recommended to the Colonial Secretary for Office in this Colony by Lord Justice TURNER, Lord CAIRNS, Lord Justice, Lord ROMILLY, M. R., three Vice-Chancellors, Sir J. STUART, Sir W. P. WOOD, and Sir RICHARD MALINS, and Mr. JAMES, Vice-Chancellor of Lancaster, and I had testimonials from a very large number of Queen's Counsel, my personal and professional friends, whose friendships I still enjoy. Since I came here as Chief Justice I have uniformly been, on and off the Bench, on the most satisfactory terms with the three other Barristers practising here, and, apparently, with Mr. POLLARD, until he drove me to the course I most unwillingly took, and that during the same period, I have had not one question or difference with the five respectable Attornies who practice here. With Mr. POLLARD alone have I ever had a difference; I have occasionally borne much discourtesy from him; but for some time before, and on the 27th of June, we were on friendly terms. It is very strange indeed therefore if, without any cause, I should have treated Mr. POLLARD on the 27th of June in the way he designates as \"an arbitrary, intemperate, unjust and tyrannical manner.\"\n\nI have the honor to be,\n\nSir,\n\nYour very obedient Servant,\n\nWm. \n\nChief Justice.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-123 - Sir MacDonnell - 1867 [7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 276752, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868", "page_number": 52, "title": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868", "content_text": "mired \n\nwhich is from Hong Kong \n\nfound in \n\nHong \n\nthe bad \n\ncondition in which \n\nthe Postmaster states, \n\nthat the \n\nArrives \n\nyet \n\ncorrespondents \n\nthere \n\nhave similar complaints been received \n\nfrom the great majority \n\nof the places to which \n\nthe letters \n\nin bags \n\nare \n\nconveyed \n\n2825 out of Hong Kong. 50 \n\nColonial Bishoprics Fund, \n\n5, PARK PLACE, ST. JAMES'S STREET, LONDON, S.W. \n\nCopy Earl Grey \n\n3 April, 1868. \n\nMinute ? 15 \n\n1218 767. \n\nC. \n\nGen 167 \n\nt. 315-7235/67. \n\nB. \n\n1393/69. \n\nMy Lord Duke \n\nLISTED \n\nMAR 20 1868 \n\nMarch 20 1866 \n\nWith reference to the letter of Sir S. J. Coleridge \n\nand Archdeacon Hale addressed to Earl Grey under date of Dec. 30 1848, and \n\nhis Lordship's answer of Jan. 9. 1849, on the subject of the Endowment of the Bishopric of Victoria (Hong Kong) I am directed to Enquire whether the arrangement \n\nproposed by the Colonial Bishoprics Council and approved by Earl Grey is understood by the Colonial Office, as an engagement to secure the Endowment therein specified. \n\nin such a manner that the Bishop \n\nof the said See should simply receive", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 276761, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868", "page_number": 61, "title": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868", "content_text": "# SCHEDULE.\n\n## PART IV.\n\n### CEYLON AND HONG KONG.\n\nNumber in Series.\nFrom Whom.\nDate and Number.\nSUBJECT.\nPage.\n\nCEYLON,\n\n1849:\n\n1\nGovernor Lord Torrington.\n12 Dec. (182)\nProposed Retirement of the Archdeacon of Colombo, and arrangements respecting the Appointment of Chaplaincies; suggested increase of Archdeacon's Pension by a deduction from the Stipend of one of the Colonial Chaplains, &c.\n3\n\n1850:\n\n2\nEarl Grey\n15 Feb. (494)\nObjections to the proposal respecting the Archdeacon's Pension\n5\n\n1849:\n\n3\nGovernor Lord Torrington.\n13 Feb. (26)\nVisitation of Mauritius by Bishop of Colombo; Bishop's application for Leave; observations on Salary arrangements\n6\n\n4\nEarl Grey\n9 April (378)\nIn reply\n8\n\n1850:\n\n5\nGovernor Lord Torrington.\n12 Jan. (16)\nEnclosing a Letter from the Bishop of Colombo, respecting the Governor's proceedings connected with arrangements for Chaplaincies in his Diocese, and complaining of not having been consulted in the matter\n8\n\nG\nEarl Grey\n28 Feb. (509)\nIn reply\n11\n\nHONG KONG.\n\n1847:\n\n1848:\n\n1\nEarl Grey to Governor Sir J. Bonham.\n14 Dec.\n\nThe Archbishop of Canterbury to Earl Grey.\n19 Mar. (77)\nForwarding a Correspondence with the Rev. G. Smith, relative to the Religious and Social interests of Hong Kong\n12\n\nOn the subject of the proposed Establishment of the Bishopric of Victoria\n15\n\n2\nEarl Grey.\n21 Dec.\nIn reply to the preceding communication\n16\n\n4\nRev. J. T. Coleridge and W. H. Hale to Earl Grey.\n30 Dec.\nStating, as Treasurers of the Colonial Bishopric's Fund, the manner in which the Endowment of the proposed Bishopric of Victoria is to be provided\n16\n\n1849:\n\n5\nB. Hawes, Esq., M.P., to Her Majesty's Law Officers.\n6 Feb.\nContaining directions for preparing the proper Instrument for erecting the Island of Hong Kong and its Dependencies into an Episcopal See\n16\n\nG\nHer Majesty's Law Officers.\n7 Mar.\nTransmitting a Draft Order in Council for that purpose\n17\n\nช\nEarl Grey to the Lord President of the Council.\n14 Mar.\nTransmitting Draft Order in Council relative to the See of Victoria, to be submitted for approval to Her Majesty in Council\n17\n\nEarl Grey to Governor Bonham.\n19 May (115)\nForwarding Her Majesty's Letters Patent under the Great Seal, constituting the Bishopric of Victoria; together with an Order of Her Majesty in Council, respecting the Authority and Jurisdiction of the See\n18\n\nPage 3\n\n# COPIES of any PETITIONS to the QUEEN, and of any Representations to Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State in the Colonial Department, on COLONIAL CHURCH Legislation, or on any points affecting the Management of the Affairs of the Church in the Colonies since 1845.\n\n## PART IV.\n\n### CEYLON and HONG KONG.\n\n### CEYLON.\n\n#### No. 1.\n\n(No. 182.)\n\nCopy of a DESPATCH from Governor the Viscount Torrington to Earl Grey.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nQueen's House, Colombo, 12 December 1849.\n\n(Received, 29 January 1850.)\n\n(Answered, 15 February 1850, No. 494, page 5.)\n\n1. I HAVE the honour to transmit a communication from the senior Colonial Chaplain, Dr. Bailey, Archdeacon of Colombo, tendering the resignation of his chaplaincy, provided an adequate allowance can be ensured to him on his retirement.\n\n2. It is manifest, that for a person of Dr. Bailey's rank in the Church, and distinction as a theological writer, and whose maturer years have been devoted to the ministry in this climate, the mere amount of pension to which he would be entitled would be quite insufficient for maintenance in the decline of life.\n\n3. Under similar circumstances, and on the same considerations, a provision was made for the retirement of the late Archdeacon Glennie, increasing it to £1,000 per annum, by adding to his pension a sum of £400 per annum from the income of the newly appointed Bishop of Colombo, which, on the death of the Archdeacon, reverted to the bishopric.\n\n4. Dr. Bailey has not inappropriately pleaded this precedent, and asked, in addition to his pension, that a sum might be taken from one or other of the chaplaincies for his life, sufficient to make up his retiring allowance to £500 per annum.\n\n5. I think it would be inexpedient to make this deduction from the income of Dr. Bailey's successor in the senior Colonial Chaplaincy of Colombo, since the expenses of living are there so considerably greater than at any of the other stations, that I could not with propriety recommend even the temporary reduction.\n\n6. But I think Dr. Bailey's object may be effected by another course, which accords with a recommendation that I should have been prepared to make, irrespective of his present application.\n\n7. In 1845, on the recommendation of the Bishop of Colombo, the Chaplaincy of Kandy, then about to be vacated, was reduced to £500 per annum, whereas it had previously been £700; and as those of Trincomalie and Galle come to be vacant, it was my purpose to suggest a similar reduction.\n\n8. In conformity with this view I think it right to recommend to your Lordship that the Rev. S. O. Glenie, the Colonial Chaplain of Trincomalie, should be transferred to Colombo in succession to Dr. Bailey, in whose absence he is now acting as Senior Colonial Chaplain. The change would not involve any advantage to Mr. Glenie in point of salary, but he has solicited the appointment on other grounds; and both from his standing and high qualifications, I considered the arrangement in every way desirable.\n\n9. In...\n\nPage 4", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 276768, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868", "page_number": 68, "title": "CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868", "content_text": "16\n\nCORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COLONIAL DEPARTMENT\n\nON COLONIAL CHURCH LEGISLATION, &c.\n\n17\n\nIV.\n\nIV.\n\nHONG KONG,\n\nNo. 3.\n\nEarl Grey to Archbishop of Canterbury, 21 Dec. 1848.\n\nNo. 4.\n\nRev. J. T. Coleridge and W. H. Hale to Earl Grey. 30 Dec. 1848.\n\nNo. 3.— Copy of a LETTER from Earl Grey to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.\n\nMy Lord Archbishop,\n\nDowning-street, 21 December 1848.\n\nI HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Grace's letter of the 14th instant, in which you recommend that the necessary steps be taken for the erection of a Bishopric in the island of Hong Kong.\n\nUnderstanding as I do, from your Grace's communication to me on this subject, that a fund for the endowment of the proposed bishopric is at the disposal of the Society for Propagating the Gospel, I am prepared to advise the Queen to institute the bishopric; but as some difficulty was experienced on a preceding occasion, in making a satisfactory arrangement for the payment of a new Bishop's salary after his appointment, I have to request that your Grace will transmit to me an official statement as to the manner in which the endowment of the new bishopric is to be provided for, in order that no doubt may exist that it has been effectually secured.\n\nI am,\n\n(signed) Grey.\n\nNo. 4.\n\nCopy of a LETTER from the Rev. J. T. Coleridge and W. H. Hale to Earl Grey.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nColonial Bishopric's Fund, 79, Pall-mall, 30 December 1848.\n\nWe are instructed by his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, in our capacity of Treasurers of the Colonial Bishoprics' Fund, to inform your Lordship, in answer to the inquiries of your Lordship respecting \"the manner in which the endowment of the Bishopric of Hong Kong is to be provided,\" that we have a capital sum in hand, or effectually secured, of 19,000l. and upwards, and that the Episcopal Committee for the Endowment of Colonial Bishoprics have resolved to appropriate from their general fund the sum of 200l. per annum; which, when added to the interest to be received from the said 19,000, will, it is calculated, produce an income of about 1,000 per annum. In addition to these monies we have a sum of 2,000l. in hand, to which we expect shortly additions, at least equal in amount, to be applied to the erection of a college, of which the future Bishop is to be warden, and in which he is to have a residence.\n\nWe are, &c. (signed) J. T. Coleridge. W. H. Hale.\n\nOne of the objects of the institution of this Bishopric being to ensure the supervision of the missionary clergymen employed in China, it will be advisable that you should take the opinion and advice of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury as to the proper means of fulfilling that object.\n\nI am directed to take this opportunity to remind you, that the communications which Lord Grey directed me to address to you under date of 28th June and 30th September 1848 have not been answered.\n\nNo. 6.—\n\nI have, &c. (signed) B. Hawes.\n\nCopy of a LETTER from the Queen's Advocate and the Attorney and Solicitor-General to Earl Grey.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nDoctor's Commons, 7 March 1849.\n\nWE are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Mr. Hawes' letter of the 6th ultimo, stating that he was directed to request that we would prepare and transmit to your Lordship a draft of the proper instrument for erecting the island of Hong Kong and its dependencies into an Episcopal See, to be styled the Bishopric of Victoria, and for appointing the Rev. George Smith, Master of Arts, to be the first Bishop of that See.\n\nThat one of the objects of the institution of this Bishopric being to ensure the supervision of the missionary clergymen employed in China, it will be advisable that we should take the opinion and advice of his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury as to the proper means of fulfilling the object.\n\nIn obedience to your Lordship's commands we have the honour to report, that having conferred with his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and being of opinion that an Order in Council, under the authority of the stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 80, is necessary to insure the supervision by the Bishop of Victoria of the missionary clergymen employed in China, we have prepared and herewith transmit the draft of an Order in Council for that purpose; we have also prepared and herewith transmit the draft of letters patent for erecting the island of Hong Kong and its dependencies into an Episcopal See, and for appointing the Rev. George Smith to be the Bishop of that See.\n\nNo. 7.\n\nWe have, &c. (signed) J. Dodson. John Jervis. John Romilly.\n\nNo. 6. Queen's Advocate and Attorney and Solicitor-General to Earl Grey. 7 March 1849.\n\nNo. 5 B. Hawes, Esq. Mr. to Queen's Advocate and Attorney and Solicitor-General. 6 February 1849.\n\nNo. 5.\n\nCopy of a LETTER from B. Hawes, Esq. M.P., to the Queen's Advocate and the Attorney and Solicitor-General.\n\nSir,\n\nDowning-street, 6 February 1849.\n\nI AM directed by Earl Grey to request that you will, in concurrence with Mr. Attorney and Mr. Solicitor-general, prepare and transmit to his Lordship a draft of the proper instrument for erecting the island of Hong Kong and its dependencies into an Episcopal See, to be styled the Bishopric of Victoria, and for appointing the Rev. G. Smith, M.A., to be the first Bishop of that see.\n\nCOPY of a LETTER from Earl Grey to the Lord President of the Council.\n\nDowning-street, 14 March 1849.\n\nMy Lord,\n\nI HAVE the honour to transmit herewith the draft of an Order in Council, for placing all persons in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland, being within the dominions of the Emperor of China, or being within any ship or vessel at a distance of not more than 100 miles from the coast of China, under the authority and jurisdiction of the see of Victoria, now about to be erected, and the Bishop thereof, in the same manner as if they were resident within the Island of Hong Kong; and I have to request that your Lordship will submit the same for the approval of Her Majesty in Council,\n\nI am, &c. (signed) Grey,\n\nNo. 7.\n\nEarl Grey to Lord President of the Council. 14 March 1849.\n\nPage 355-4.\n\nC\n\n- No. 8.\n\n66", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-135 - Public Offices & Others - 1868.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 278133, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5]", "page_number": 146, "title": "CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5]", "content_text": "CASAL\n\n(20)\n\nNo such information has ever been filed in this Colony until these four informations, which were filed three on one day and the fourth within less than seven weeks afterwards.\n\nI must remark that the Acting Attorney General was not wanting in energy in the course he took. He meant what was right, but the tendency of filing three informations in one day against one man, for two articles on the same subject, to the same purport, tended unduly to depress the Defendant, and by a sort of mental torture to induce him to make the most abject apology whether what he had said was capable of being proved to be true or not, especially in this Colony where, as I believe, the costs of litigation exceed the like costs elsewhere in the British dominions or in the world, and even success in three such suits may be ruin to a man if he be not rich. Any apology under such circumstances could not have been satisfactory to any party.\n\nThese informations were all professedly framed on the precedent which Peltier's case in 1803 furnished. Mr Hayllar very aptly remarked that the decision in Peltier's case and that in Wason v. Walter, decided in Nov. last, with an interval of over 65 years between them, belonged to two different worlds of thought. The difference well illustrates that admirable elasticity, to which Chief Justice Cockburn has referred, with which the Law of England adapts itself to the varying conditions of society.\n\nBeyond question my public conduct has been as severely, as vehemently, of course unjustly, criticised by the press repeatedly, and I may add by this Defendant, as that of any public man anywhere; but I will not allow Mr Pollard's proposition to pass for law without remark.\n\nIf a man be libelled in his private character it cannot be for the public good, and it is not protected; but it is different as to what Mr Pollard called this, a public libel. When a public man is libelled in respect of his public conduct it may be justified, for to expose misconduct in public offices is for the public good.\n\nMr Saint, either not having had an opportunity to explain or declining to explain on such compulsion, appeared on the 20th of May last to all three informations. He was served with rules to plead, and thereupon obtained a rule nisi for a month's time to plead, and for leave to demur and plead a justification, or as he should be advised. The rule was opposed by Mr Pollard (the Acting Attorney General not appearing) on the 5th of June, and Mr Pollard insisted that it was the universal practice not to allow a justification to be pleaded to what he called a public libel, which he said was...\n\nIt is true, and happy for us it is true, that every man \"has a right to discuss matters of public interest.\" This is what Bramwell B. said in Kelly v. Sherlock, 1 L. R. Q. B. 689, as Cockburn, C.J., at p. 701 affirmed with the most perfect propriety. The language of Mr Baron Bramwell is more pointed, but in sense it is only a repetition of the language of Mr Justice Coleridge in Gathercole v. Miall, 15 M. & W. 332, who said, \"I think it quite right that all matters...\n\n(a)\n\n143\n\nThis is inaccurate - The costs of litigation here are less than in Shanghai and I believe less than in any part of India.\n\n(b) The C.J. seems to confuse the question of dry legal right of the Attorney General with that of the Policy of Government.\n\n(c) There is no record of any such admission.\n\nPollard\n\n072\n\nthe both by the judges' notes and by the Crown Solicitor - his way to England.\n\nMr Ball is now on...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-137 - Sir MacDonnell - 1869 [4-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 279811, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-140 - Public Offices - 1869", "page_number": 208, "title": "CO129-140 - Public Offices - 1869", "content_text": "for carrying theme\n\nIn obedience to\n\nlordships Commande, we\n\ntaken this matter into\n\nyour\n\nhave\n\nConsideration and howe the honor\n\n4 Report\n\nThat\n\nm\n\nit\n\nopinion\n\nin it\n\nwould have been competent to the Governor of Hong Kong in Council\n\nto issue such\n\nan order.\n\n\"We have the honor to be\n\nMy Lord\n\nYour Lordship's Most Obed!\n\nDewants\n\nhumble serv\n\nW. D. Coleridge\n\nMINUTE PAPER.\n\nW. Arttland.\n\nAs this a Law\n\n206 b\n\nWhair tunion I fomard\n\nat this you\n\nthis jou\n\nLan\n\nast presiourly death with Mère Rafies - Act. I thank all that has ble\n\ndown in to send a chy\n\nother L. the F.O. with aference & om lettin 6- thea ofthe 31 hely (6368)\n\nachine an get an\n\nporn\n\nauca\n\nin the foremos\n\nAfter re-examining the text and following the instructions:\n\nFor carrying theme\n\nIn obedience to\n\nlordships Commande, we\n\nhave taken this matter into\n\nyour\n\nConsideration and how the honor\n\nTo Report\n\nThat in our opinion\n\nit would have been competent to the Governor of Hong Kong in Council\n\nto issue such\n\nan order.\n\n\"We have the honor to be\n\nMy Lord\n\nYour Lordship's Most Obedient\n\nhumble servants\n\nW. D. Coleridge\n\nBo Colleer\n\nMINUTE PAPER.\n\nW. Arttland.\n\nAs this is a Law\n\n206 b\n\nWhair tunion I forward\n\nto you\n\nLan\n\nast presiourly death with Mère Rafies - Act. I thank all that has been done to send a chy\n\nto the F.O. with reference & om lettin 6- thea ofthe 31 hely (6368)\n\nand get an\n\nin the foremos\n\nHowever, to fully adhere to the instructions and provide a more accurate response:\n\nFor carrying theme\n\nIn obedience to\n\nLordship's Command, we have taken this matter into your Consideration and how the honor\n\nTo Report\n\nThat in our opinion it would have been competent to the Governor of Hong Kong in Council to issue such an order.\n\nWe have the honor to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Obedient humble servants\n\nW. D. Coleridge\n\nBo Colleer\n\nMINUTE PAPER.\n\nW. Arttland.\n\n...\n\nAs this is a Law 206b, I forward ... at this ... you ... this ... Lan ... ast presiourly death with Mère Rafies - Act. I thank all that has been done to send a copy to the F.O. with reference & omitting 6- thea ofthe 31hely(6368)\n\nand get an answer in the foremos...\n\nThe final version, formatted in HTML as requested:\n\nFor carrying theme\n\nIn obedience to Lordship's Command, we have taken this matter into your Consideration and how the honor To Report That in our opinion it would have been competent to the Governor of Hong Kong in Council to issue such an order.\n\nWe have the honor to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's Most Obedient humble servants\n\nW. D. Coleridge\nBo Colleer\n\nMINUTE PAPER.\n\nW. Arttland.\n\nAs this is a Law 206b, I forward ... to you ... Lan ... ast presiourly death with Mère Rafies - Act. I thank all that has been done to send a copy to the F.O. with reference & omitting 6- thea ofthe 31hely(6368)\n\nand get an answer in the foremos...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-140 - Public Offices - 1869.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 279819, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-140 - Public Offices - 1869", "page_number": 216, "title": "CO129-140 - Public Offices - 1869", "content_text": "Supreme Court - Indeed the 15th and 16th sections of the same Ordinance appear in their terms inconsistent with any such construction of the 4th section; for they speak of \"the Prosecutor\" and of \"the Prosecutor or his attorney\" whereas if the Attorney General had been the Prosecutor it is clear that the Attorney General would have been named.\n\nYour Lordship's does not invite and we therefore do not feel called upon to express an opinion on the claim. The Chief Justice has the power to command the attendance and assistance of the Attorney General of the colony for the conduct of the prosecution generally.\n\nWe have the honor to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's most obedient humble Servants.\n\nB.D. Collen, J.D. Coleridge", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-140 - Public Offices - 1869.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 280272, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869", "page_number": 175, "title": "CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869", "content_text": "173\n\nOn the whole, however,\n\nwe are able to advise the\n\nfurther prevention, for the sake of settling questions of Law of one appeal in a proceeding which ought not to have been begun, and might have been, if begun, conducted very differently\n\nInconvenient consequences may arise\n\nNo\n\ndoubt from discontinuing the proceedings in this\n\ncase, but they are\n\nA\n\nless\n\nevil in our\n\njudgement\n\nIt is\n\neasy by\n\nstatement.\n\nto the Government of Macao to take proceedings, in a less objectionable form a new one against anyone who libels it - the two pending informations should be put an\n\nend to\n\nand 5\n\nWe have it –\n\n(signed)\n\nR. P. Collier. J.D. Coleridge F. F. F. (possibly \"Fraser Fais\" or similar, but \"F. F. F.\" is kept as is due to uncertainty)\n\nthan continuing them\n\nor minute to prevent the\n\njudgement of the Chief Justice from being\n\ntaken as accepted by the Govt or\n\nstanding\n\nus as an uncontested precedent _ the Portuguese\n\nas\n\nGovernment may properly be informed by your Lordship that grave questions of procedure\n\nhave arisen, which render it unadvisable to\n\nprosecute further _ But that Government\n\nabriged be open\n\nmay also be told that it will\n\nto ...\n\nHowever, to follow the exact output format requested (HTML using for paragraphs), here is the revised version:\n\n173\n\nOn the whole, however, we are able to advise the further prevention, for the sake of settling questions of Law of one appeal in a proceeding which ought not to have been begun, and might have been, if begun, conducted very differently\n\nInconversant consequences may arise No doubt from discontinuing the proceedings in this case, but they are A less evil in our judgement\n\nIt is easy by statement to the Government of Macao to take proceedings, in a less objectionable form a new one against anyone wholbels it - the two pending informations should be put an end to\n\nWe have it – (signed) R. P. Collier. J.D. Coleridge F. F. F.\n\nthan continuing them or minute to prevent the judgement of the Chief Justice from being taken as accepted by the Govt or standing us as an uncontested precedent the Portuguese Government may properly be informed by your Lordship that grave questions of procedure have arisen, which render it unadvisable to prosecute further But that Government may also be told that it will be open\n\nRevised to fit the exact HTML format and proofreading guidelines:\n\n173\n\nOn the whole, however, we are able to advise the further prevention, for the sake of settling questions of Law of one appeal in a proceeding which ought not to have been begun, and might have been, if begun, conducted very differently\n\nInconvenient consequences may arise No doubt from discontinuing the proceedings in this case, but they are a less evil in our judgement\n\nIt is easy by statement to the Government of Macao to take proceedings in a less objectionable form, a new one against anyone who libels it - the two pending informations should be put an end to\n\nWe have it – (signed) R. P. Collier. J.D. Coleridge F. F. F.\n\nthan continuing them or minute to prevent the judgement of the Chief Justice from being taken as accepted by the Government or standing us as an uncontested precedent. The Portuguese Government may properly be informed by your Lordship that grave questions of procedure have arisen, which render it unadvisable to prosecute further. But that Government may also be told that it will be open", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 280318, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869", "page_number": 221, "title": "CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869", "content_text": "219\n\nMay, Last, whether the Chinese foot is at liberty to levy any other tax on goods than that provided by the \"Treaty of Sication\" on opium and other goods being \"British merchandise\" carried in \"Vessels\" or being carried in \"Chinese Vessels\" to or from \"the Treaty Ports\" we are of opinion that the Tariff provided under that Treaty (XI. Hertalet p. 97), as the Treaty contains no words extending the operation of that Tariff beyond the scope of the Tariff fixed by Article X of the Treaty of Ranking, of which it is a revision, must be taken to apply to goods, being British merchandise, when imported in British Vessels into one of the Treaty Ports & has no application to goods imported in Chinese Vessels.\n\nThe Treaty of Ranking a subsequent Trade Regulations (VI. Hertalet. p. 243) clearly apply only to Trade carried on in British Merchantmen.\n\nWe observe that the term \"Merchandise\" does not occur in the Treaty nor in the revised Tariff, & that we do not find any provision for the carrying on of Trade by British Merchants at any of the open Ports in Chinese Vessels.\n\nWe have &c.\n\n15.) R. P. Collier 1.) J.D. Coleridge\n\n(+) Travers Twiss", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 280455, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869", "page_number": 358, "title": "CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869", "content_text": "356\n\nAmenable\n\nor are said to have rendered themselves amenable to the Criminal Law, and with regard to such persons as no question of Nationality could arise, if they had not escaped from Macao or Hoihong respectively, we do not see why any question of nationality should arise in an extradition treaty such as this is in substance.\n\n5.\n\nWe see no reason for confining the operation of S. 10 as suggested in Mr Monsell's Letter. It can hardly be said that an attempt to murder becomes more political in its nature because it is directed against the person of a subordinate Officer and not of the Governor himself.\n\nWe need hardly observe that all these points are after all matters much more for your Lordship's Judgment than questions of legal opinion.\n\nWe have to\n\n(2d.) M.P. Collier J.D. Coleridge Travers Twiss.\n\n1", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-141 - Public Offices - 1869.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 284794, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]", "page_number": 238, "title": "CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6]", "content_text": "## Supreme Court of Hongkong\n\nMay 22nd, 1871\n\n**Before the Hon. Chief-Justice Smale**\n\n**Coolies Not Criminal for Rising on the Captain of a Coolie Ship from Macao to Peru**\n\n**In re Kwok a Sing - Judgment**\n\n... a house, in which he had been arrested, and in one of the charges to those in the other two towards which I presume he was proceeding documents.\n\nAs to his case, referring to what was said by the Court in re Douglas, in Q B. Rep. I make no observation, because in the view I take of this case to do so is unnecessary; but if necessary it is open to the prisoner to contend that such arrest vitiated the whole of the subsequent proceedings against him, or such of them as it is his interest to allege were unsustainable in law. Such arrest was on a demand by the French Consul for the prisoner's arrest, made pending the hearing on the writ of habeas corpus before me, and upon a warrant granted for his arrest dated the 16th day of February last, at which time also that hearing before me was actually pending. An investigation upon this new demand by the French Consul proceeded in the Council Chamber before the Executive Council, but the Attorney-General on the 26th day of April, 1871, announced that the French Consul withdrew his demand, and that investigation terminated suddenly, the prisoner being present. Immediately thereupon the Attorney-General directed the Superintendent of Police to arrest, and he did arrest, the prisoner, in the Council Chamber, on a charge of piracy jure gentium.\n\nThe following judgment by Chief-Justice Smale, on the return to a second habeas corpus was delivered.\n\n## Judgment\n\nAfterwards stealing a boat. \nFeloniously seizing ship Nouvelle Penelope, and her apparel and tackle at sea.\n\nPiratically and feloniously seizing ship Nouvelle Penelope, and her apparel and tackle at sea.\n\n| Charge | Offence |\n| --- | --- |\n| No. 1 | Piratically stealing $10,000 and 10 watches, in custody of the Captain and Crew, on 4th October, 1870, at sea, and in peace of the Queen. |\n| No. 2 | Murdering Captain and certain of the Crew, naming them, on 4th October, 1870, at sea, and in peace of the Queen. |\n| No. 3 | Piratically and feloniously seizing ship Nouvelle Penelope and her apparel and tackle at sea, throwing them into the sea, on 4th October, 1870. |\n\nExcluding consideration at present entirely from the charge before me on the testimony of credible witnesses for that the said defendant, on 4th October last past, with a number of other evil-disposed persons unknown, with arms upon the high seas within the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty of England, in and on board a certain ship or vessel called the Nouvelle Penelope, being piratically and feloniously did make an assault on the said ship, and the apparel and tackle of the said ship, feloniously and violently did steal, take and carry away; and immediately before the commission of the said felony, the said defendant and the evil-disposed persons aforesaid did feloniously, wilfully and of their malice aforethought, kill and murder the said Vigoureux, the master, Manfllent, the chief officer of the said ship, and Le Jusaat, Paul Gigot, Francis Labert, Edmund Mongaret and Ishmael Alphonce, seamen, and a certain Manila seaman, whose name is not known, of the crew of the said ship.\n\nNow, considering that the said defendant is a subject of China and has committed the said crimes against the Laws of China by feloniously seizing the said ship at sea, and by murdering the Captain and certain of the crew of the said ship on the 4th October last past, at sea; and further that after committing the said crimes did feloniously seize a boat belonging to the said ship, and land at a place called Pahka, in Chinese territory, on the 4th October aforesaid...\n\nThe prisoner was committed to Gaol by warrant of Mr. May, Police Magistrate, dated the 7th February, 1871...\n\nMr. Francis contends that under sec. 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act the prisoner is entitled to be discharged from custody. \n\n...no person set at large upon any habeas corpus shall be again imprisoned or committed \"for the same offence\" by any person, other than by the legal process of the court having jurisdiction of the cause.\n\nCan Mr. May, or can his Court, be so designated? Cox v. Coleridge, 1 B and C, 87... shows that although when sitting to punish under a statute, Mr. May sits as a Court, yet that when he sits as a magistrate with a view to committal for trial before this Court his magistracy is not a Court. His is a preliminary inquiry and not a \"trial.\"\n\n...the depositions on which his warrant was founded.\n\n| Commitment | Charge |\n| --- | --- |\n| 1st | Offence as set out in \"Habeas Corpus\" prisoner was set at large. |\n| 2nd | Offence as set out stealing ship Nouvelle Penelope, and her apparel and tackle at sea. |\n\nThe Attorney-General now also relied on the fact that an information equivalent to a true bill on an indictment by a grand jury has been filed.\n\n...the words of section 6 of the Habeas Corpus Act...\n\n...delivered and set at large upon that \"habeas corpus.\" The prisoner was, as I understand, immediately after his having been so set at large, seized within a gun shot of the Court...\n\n...as he was proceeding towards Taipingshan...\n\nThe following Table shows the sameness of the charge contained in the information filed by the Attorney-General now also relied on.\n\nPage 363 \n\n## Inclosure No 3 in Attorney General's printed Report of 25 May 1871\n\n**up in the case of Kwok a Sing**\n\n(From the \"Daily Press,\" May 23rd, 1871.)\n\n...\n\n`GR1178/1922/32(III)` \n`XCR(85)72` \n\n## Artiebo \n\nboard the ou \n\n...the said Master in and in ship and then in the custody and possession o said Master Mariners and crew against and possession ession and Master Mariners and crew from the Will ofst the care and of the said felonially violently did steal täple and carry away atid of \"the Court is also informed that at the Piracy teece a bing the said the said Quot assault with intent to murder the firatically did fel committing felonionoly felonienaly ouide Le Vigenrens the Master of the ound ship and de and unlawfully throw the body of the The Vigoureux into the sea- life of Ligoureux wa o whereby endangered. \n\n**(Signed) Julian Pannafate Attorney General.**\n\nPok bing. Take Notice that You will be tried `022` this Information at the General Criminal Session above mentioned to be holden at Victoria in and on the Nivelan for the thi Colony Colony of HongKong day of may 1071 \n\n**[illegible] M. H. Alexander Registrar**", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-150 - Lieut Governor Whitfield - 1871 [5-6].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 286143, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "page_number": 99, "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "content_text": "## 7346 \n\n93 \n\nHome \n\nand the matter being one of great practical importance we on the whole think it advisable to apply for leave to appeal against both, and we suggest that the **Queen's Proctor** should be instructed to prepare the necessary papers to support a motion for this purpose.\n\nWe have the honour to be \nMy Lord, \nYour Lordship's most obedient, \nhumble Servants. \nR.B. Collier \nColeridge \n**Law Officers**. 7546-71. Hong Kong, \n\n## MINUTE PAPER. \n\nM. Meade. \nI presume this will be referred to Mr. Holland's successor, as nothing can be done for some time.\n\nWe could, I think, place the papers in the hands of the **Queen's Proctor** in the meantime & prepare a case, but owing to the time of year (vacation) I do not think much time will be lost by keeping things in train.\n\nW. Un Holland. \nPatent Case 3/1/71 \nI suppose this will not entail a long delay. The matter is one of extreme importance & we shall not be justified in letting it remain hung up here. August 3/8/71 \n\n9/4114 \nIf no delay will be caused by waiting for W. Un Holland, by all means wait. \nBut if time would be lost, the **Queen's Proctor** should prepare the case at once.\n\nK \nor sent to him August 3/71 \n\nTh \nI think it proper to wait till the **Queen's Proctor** states whether he desires to prepare...", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 286152, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "page_number": 108, "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "content_text": "## MINUTE PAPER\n\nHouse of Commons.\n\nYour Lordship's Most obirent, humble Servnets\n\nIf Coller M. Coleridge\n\nThanks Tarps 10 Haskay\n\n8271\n\nM. Mende 107\n\nSend off the hillin L...th Queens Rotor affront? 41018.\n\nSee 10 7546.\n\nalundy an Rm 10/0 at Rm F", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 286159, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "page_number": 115, "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "content_text": "# of Colonial Agent \n\nAdmirality \n\nAgent \n\nCourt \n\nChinese Subject named \nCher Sen has been punished under section 50 of the Hong \nKong Ordinance No 11 of 1865 \n\nIt is not identical with the offence for which his extradition \nis claimed under the Treaty of Tientsin and that he \naccordingly after the \nexpiration of his sentence be \nsurrendered to the \nproper Chinese Authorities.\n\nWe have the honor to be, \nMy Lord, \nYour Lordship's most obedient \nHumble Servants, \nR.P. Colleridge \nW. Trench \nT. Triggs \n2.0.10503-71- Noregrou \n\n## MINUTE PAPER \nMt. Holland \n27/10/53 \n\nThe Law Officers have expressed as \ntheir opinion that they would inform the \nColonial Office draft `653 Lending` \nMy Lord's dubious \ndecision. \nJITA. 27/10 \nKow \nRow 17", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 286214, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "page_number": 170, "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "content_text": "## MINUTE\n\nOf Colonial Admiral Agent \n\nThe question arises regarding the Extradition of a person accused of murder who has fled to Hongkong. In this situation, we see no objection to his being surrendered if he has committed a murder within French jurisdiction (see Extradition Treaty of Feb 18, 1843, 6 _Hertslet_: p. 345) and if the evidence is sufficient at a preliminary hearing, as agreed by Treaty and sanctioned by Act of Parliament (6 and 7 Vict. c. 75, 16 _Hertslet_: p. 448). As to the question which we understand to be asked with respect to the correctness of the opinion of our predecessors of July 21, 1852, we have today decided that if that opinion is taken to refer to the jurisdiction of the Colonial Court to try the offence of murder, we think it correct, but that if the offence was one of Piracy (a view of the law which does not appear to have been considered), we think it open to question.\n\n(signed) J.S. Coleridge \nJars \nFL 2230 \nHongkong.\n\nThe off? hdm. I. the govt of Sin \n\"Nags Hongkong\"\n\nF10 March 1876.\n\nI received from you on the 27th Feb a telegraphic dispatch dated the 21st of the same month in the following words: \n_\"Is Extradition Treaty with France still in force. \"Is opinion on piracy in Forsyth page 229 to be followed. Prisoner is claimed for murder, \"not for piracy!\"_\n\nI replied by telegraph on the 8th March at 2:30 pm as follows: \n_\"Extradition Treaty is in force. Prisoner may be surrendered to France if murder committed within French Jurisdiction, and evidence sufficient as agreed by treaty and Act of Parliament.\"_\n\nW \nMW11 and MTM Warhurst Sir Rogers Bt M. Hrgessen Earl of Kimberley \nJuly 169", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 286266, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "page_number": 222, "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "content_text": "## \nArising out of a claim for the Extradition of a Criminal on a charge of murder, where evidence would support a charge of Aggravated Piracy under the Law of Nations, would the surrender of the criminal preclude the claim to the parties claiming him under the Treaty, in which murder is specified as one of the Crimes on account of which his \"Extradition might be claimed. We understand from the letters of Major General Whitfield of Feb: 21.1871, that the Criminal in this case has been claimed by the French Vice Consul under the Treaty between Great Britain & France, for murder committed on board a French Ship. Whereas we see no sufficient grounds why the Acting Govt of Hong Kong should decline to surrender him to the French Vice Consul.\n\nWe have \nled/ R.N. Collier. \n3. Coleridge. \nTravers Twiss.\n\nPage 221", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 286323, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "page_number": 279, "title": "CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871", "content_text": "of Co\n\nAdmir\n\nAgent\n\nhave the honour to Report\n\nFlat\n\nwe are of opinion that Y\n\n may properly direct Hill. Ambassador in\nParis to remonstrate strongly with the French Govt against the conduct\n\nof the Captains of the\n\n\"Omer et Julie\" in landing in the Colony of\n\n50 destitute Chinese Subjects of Hongkong deported from Saigon without any provision\n\nfor\n\ntheir maintenance, & urgently to request\n\nthat such conduct may not be repeated.\n\nWe assume that H.M. The L. Govr of\n\nHong Kong is authorized\n\nby the local\n\nOrdinances to direct the transfer of the\n\nChinese from Hong Kong to Canton, on which\n\nassumption\n\nwe are\n\nof opinion that he\n\nhas adopted a proper\n\ncourse in\n\ntransferring them\n\nonce to the protection of the nearest Chinese\n\nAuthority.\n\nWe have &c.\n\nCopy.\n\nNo 1140.\n\nThe Earl\n\nMy Lord,\n\n278\n\nParis. - Sept: 14. 1871.\n\nI have this day\n\n9529\n\nhad the honour\n\nto receive Y\n\n Despatch: No 594. of the 9th\ninst: reep:\n\nrelative to\n\nthe arrival at\n\nHong Kong of the \"French Ship \"Omer et Julie\" with 50 destitute Chinese, stated to have been deported from Saigon, I have the honour to inclose a Copy of\n\na Note\n\non the subject, which I have addressed in obedience to Y\n\n's order.\nto the French\n\nGovt in\n\nI have &c.\n\n(at) Lyons.\n\nGranville K.G.\n\nR.P. Collier.\n\nJ.D. Coleridge.\n\n\"Travers Twiss.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-154 - Public Offices - 1871.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 289446, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-160 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 219, "title": "CO129-160 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "\"inconvenient that it was repealed by the 4th sec. of the Passengers Amend\". Act of 1863. (26 & 27 Vic. c.51)\n\n3. That the Messageries Maritimes relied upon the terms of the Postal Convention between Great Britain & France of 1856 to be found in the sove Herbleto Treaties. p.10 P. 4. As bearing upon that point he (Mr Halland) was to have sent to us the Copy of a letter of the 19th May 1869, addressed by the Earl of Clarendon to the French Ambassador with reference to the arrest at Hong Kong on board the Messageries Steamer \"Ligre\" which embodied the opinion of the Queen's Advocate upon the question whether that Steamer came within the fair scope of the Convention\n\n5. That he was to favour your Lordship with his opinion on the question raised by Sir A. Kennedy whether these 2 Classes of Steamers, or either of them were exempted from the operation of the Chinese Passengers Act 1855. and upon what grounds such exemption if any could be supported. In obedience to your Lordship's Command we have the honor to Report.\n\nThat we are of opinion that if the language of the convention of 24th September 1856 really differed from the language of the 18th of 19th Vic. C104. The Act must furnish the governing rules & not the Convention But we do not think the language of the two documents really differs & it appears to us that the interpretation clause of the Act clearly includes in its terms the two classes of Steamers as to which your Lordship has Consulted us. We think that these classes of Steamers are not exempted from the operation of the \"Chinese Passengers Act 1855\" and that there are no grounds upon which such exemption can be supported.\n\nWe have the honor to be My Lord Your Lordship's Most Obedient humble Servants\n\n10. Coleridge by Jessel", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-160 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 289457, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-160 - Public Offices - 1872", "page_number": 230, "title": "CO129-160 - Public Offices - 1872", "content_text": "... arrest in & that the exemption from Consequence of damages by collision is a privilege of so high a character that it should be conceded only on clear proof of the vessel being either the national property of, subsidized or chartered for the Postal Service by the French Government & that it is not of the mere leave or license of the French Government granted to vessels to carry letters & other postal communications which will entitle the vessel to the privileges given under the 5th Article of the Convention.\n\nYour Lordship will best judge whether the case of the \"Ava\" should be brought to the notice of The French Government with a view of obtaining a fair trial in the case itself: & by laying down some rule for similar cases either of British or French Vessels doing damage by Collision in the Chinese Seas (or Indian Seas where, when such vessels may be exempt from the ordinary process of arrest).\n\nYour Lordship will also be of opinion whether the Justice of the case & the convenience of all parties concerned would not be met by directing that the Consular or some other public officer should in his official capacity bail the ship proceeded against.\n\nWe have the honour to be, My Lord, Your Lordship's most humble Servants,\n\nD. Coleridge\n\nJ. G. Csal\n\nB. Deane", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-160 - Public Offices - 1872.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 292853, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873", "page_number": 283, "title": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873", "content_text": "281\n\nWe are of opinion that this clause should either be altogether left out, or modified by inserting after the word \"which\" the words \"after having been equipped within the Colony without the license of the Governor and contrary to the provisions of this ordinance\".\n\nWe consider the omission of the Clause the preferable course. The case of the \"Maria Luz\" was one in which the conduct of the Peruvian Master towards the Chinese on board his vessel justified the action of the Japanese authorities, and has in our opinion but a remote if any bearing at all upon the propriety of the proposed Ordinance.\n\nWe have, &c.\n\n(signed)\nJ.D. Coleridge\nG. Jessel\nJ. Parker Deane", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 292860, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873", "page_number": 290, "title": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873", "content_text": "that the Governor of Hongkong may \nbe instructed that \nthat in the case of \nthe misconduct of a Chinese officer, \nin the discharge of \nemployed to demand \nthe \n- \n\nHongKong Fo \nNo43 \n\nSir Arthur Kennedy \n\nMINUTE. \n\non or about 12th April \n\nM. Meredyth, \nhe duly when \nExtradition of \nof a \nChinaman that \nMr. Hugessen. \n\noffice should be sent back for punishment to his own government, \nand that the Chinaman \ndemanded \nshould not be subject to extradition \n\nI have \nde \nl \nfo \nId Coleridge \n& Jenks \nJ.P. Dean \nMr. Holland 12. Min. Herbert \nLord Kimberley. 13 \nLord Kimberley \n\nA 2.0 letter is marked Confidential which I understand went they did \nnot with the reply to \nthe head of the note \nsent, that the Colony. But your reply to the fact should not be made public \n\nJITH \n9331 \nLee FO \n3381 \n7 \n288 \nCopy April 731 \n\nSir, \nI have the honour \nto acknowledge the receipt \nof your despatches No. 8415 of the 13th \nand No. 4220 \nof 3 January reporting the \ncircumstances connected \nwith the application for the rendition of Lo-a-Son, & requesting instruction \nas \nto the liability of Officers of the Chinese Government to private prosecutions at Hongkong \n\nIn reply \nI have to state that your despatch", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 292968, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873", "page_number": 398, "title": "CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873", "content_text": "## \n\nIn obedience to L. Commands, we have the honor to report:\n\nThat we are of opinion that the Foreign Enlistment Ordinance may be conferred. It appears that the foo (Governor) of Hongkong has the power under Act 1855 to make regulations respecting British ships carrying from any port in China within 100 miles of the Court thereof. If the foo (Governor) of Hongkong may make regulations, he may legally impose the obligation of obeying such regulations.\n\nWe beg to suggest to Y.L. that in communication with 2. Kimberley G.L. it might be properly pointed out that the mode adopted for imposing this new obligation, viz., by substituting or rather making an addition to another definition, is inconvenient. That the introduction of a Consolidated Ordinance, as suggested by A. Kennedy, is desirable.\n\nLin \nWe \nColeridge \n3 \n395", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-166 - Public Offices & Others - 1873.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 310403, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]", "page_number": 529, "title": "CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4]", "content_text": "main question for the issue of a fresh writ he could not help it, but the affidavit had been prepared to enable a fresh application to be made, which their Lordships would, as a matter of course, at once entertain without notice. As the hour for the return of the writ was now long past he simply moved that the writ be read.\n\nThe Attorney-General, in reply, said he had nothing to do with ulterior proceedings; they were not before them. He understood his friend to say that he made his application for the writ upon one ground alone, without reference to the formality or sufficiency of the proceedings, but with reference only to the length of time the men had been detained, and that and all sufficient facts appeared on what was before the court. He did not know how to reconcile that with the fact that by the same motion his learned friend moved for a writ of certiorari. Then with regard to a return in Chambers, he thought there could be no question that what had happened in court was not a command to the terms of the writ. Suppose in England the judge ordered the return to be made at his Chambers in Serjeants' Inn, and instead of producing the man at Chambers in Serjeants' Inn the Superintendent had gone to Westminster Hall, that would not be a return to the writ. To say that by some circumstances the writ had got into the hands of the Registrar and been marked as filed was not at all to establish that any return had been made to the writ, and if it were so he apprehended there was some way of getting out of it when there was a notice of motion filed in court to the effect that that writ was going to be questioned and that a proceeding was pending to quash it. But there had been no return, because the person to whom it was addressed had not taken it to Chambers. As to the endorsement, his friend quite misapprehended the nature of the objection he had endeavoured to put before the Court. The practice had been that the writ should be endorsed by rule of court. That was not a mere form or matter of ornament, but something which disclosed on the face of the writ that it had been issued in term time, and in a proper way, that was, by rule of Court, and not by the mere fiat of a judge. That was the practice which had so far prevailed here; it was the practice which had prevailed in England long before that Court was established, and by the Ordinance that practice was adopted. Then a most extraordinary and audacious proposition had been put before the Court with reference to the Court and the judge. The Interpretation Ordinance simply said that wherever the word \"Court\" occurred you might substitute \"judge,\" but it did not say everything that could be done by the court might be done by a judge in chambers. It did not mean that wherever by the common law the court could do a certain thing a judge in chambers could do the same thing. Then they were told they could disregard all these additions, and that the names in the margin were simply a memorandum. Let the writ be capable of being executed without that addition and the addition invalidated it. Then there was one point his learned friend had not touched on, the omission of a date. As to the necessity of an affidavit the learned counsel read a passage from the case of Bexson and Welsby, and contended the affidavit was necessary.\n\nThe Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said he was of opinion the writ must be set aside on the grounds that the learned Attorney-General had stated; they appeared very cogent ones, and he had very little doubt each one of them was in itself sufficient to induce the court to set aside the writ. With regard to the first objection, that the writ was not endorsed, he thought what the Attorney-General said was very true, that it was absolutely necessary to observe forms in these particulars. It was well observed by Mr. Justice Coleridge that though technicalities were not of much importance, forms were the essence of all liberty. He did not think the irregularity was covered by the return of the papers. How they came into court he did not know; he believed they had been filed, but he did not think that affected the argument of the learned Attorney-General. That the writ was made returnable in Chambers was clearly a mistake: the words were evidently put there for a proceeding in vacation, and by some mistake the fact that the writ was moved for in term was not noticed. That in itself, he thought, was enough to set the writ aside. With regard to the alterations and endorsement of names on the margin of the writ, he must say he thought it was a most improper proceeding, and he was astonished that Mr. Wotton should have induced Mr. Hayward to give up the writ. And the importance of it was that the learned counsel referred to the alteration as a matter of which the court should take notice. He was of opinion that when the writ had been once served on the gaoler that was the only good service, and that ground alone would be sufficient for discharge of the writ. He need not refer to the other points.\n\nMr. Justice Russell concurred. He said, if for no other reason than to mark the sense of the Court of the enormity of this offence of altering the writ he would concur in the quashing of the writ. That a writ of the court should be altered and amended after having been signed and that it should then be relied on by Mr. Francia on the ground that the alterations were initialed by the Registrar and therefore regular, was something monstrous.\n\nAs to the necessity of an affidavit by the men, he thought the material before the Court might have been sufficient on which to grant the habeas corpus. The writ, if good in other respects, would have been good without the alteration of names; if the gaoler was able to identify the men it was clearly his duty to bring them to court. The writ, however, was apparently prepared to bring them before a judge in Chambers, and therefore it was all wrong so far, but so far as the construction went, he thought the cause of detention was shown in the warrant of admission. The matter could be easily cured, but on the irregularities appearing on the face of the writ and other grounds pointed out by the Attorney-General he thought the writ ought to be quashed.\n\nMr. Francis then moved for the issue of a fresh writ, which was granted and made returnable on Saturday.\n\nSUPREME COURT.\n\n5th November.\n\nCRIMINAL JURISDICTION.\n\nBEFORE THE FULL COURT.\n\nIN THE MATTER OF YEUNG AKAM AND TWELVE OTHERS; RETURN OF WRITS OF HABEAS CORPUS AND CERTIORARI.\n\nMr. Francis, instructed by Messrs. Brereton and Wotton, appeared for the prisoners, and the Attorney-General (Hon. E. L. O'Malley), instructed by the Crown Solicitor (Mr. E. Sharp) for the Crown.\n\nMr. Francis said he had to move their Lordships for the discharge of the prisoners on two grounds—first, that the warrant of commitment and the whole of the proceedings from beginning to end were wholly illegal and void and coram non judice; and secondly, assuming that their Lordships were against him on that point, and to hold that the warrant of commitment and proceedings were originally good, on the ground that the detention in prison under the warrant had been unreasonably and unnecessarily prolonged, and had become illegal. Assuming the warrant on the face of it authorised the detention of the prisoners for such reasonable time as was necessary for their delivery over to the Chinese authorities, any detention beyond what was reasonably necessary for the purpose became illegal. He would only point out to their Lordships in support of that view that if the present warrant was good to authorise the detention of the prisoners in gaol for eleven months it was equally good to authorise their detention for eleven years.\n\nThe Chief Justice said the language of Ordinance 2 of 1850 authorised detention until the order of the Governor was made.\n\nMr. Francis said that must mean, as every other statute meant, such reasonable time as might be ordinarily sufficient for the purpose. Their Lordships would see that if those prisoners were to be detained until the Governor's order for their rendition had been issued it was within the power of any Governor to detain them in prison for the whole period of their natural lives, and that certainly could not be the intent and meaning with which the Ordinance was passed. Any reasonable detention, all the circumstances of the case considered, was justifiable under the warrant, but their Lordships, he thought, would take it as a matter of common knowledge that if any reference to England or Peking had been necessary in connection with these prisoners time enough had elapsed for three or four separate communications to England and a dozen to Peking. To show what was the\n\n527", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-195 - Governor Hennessy - 1881 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 329764, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885", "page_number": 87, "title": "CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885", "content_text": "# No header\n\n2212 \n85 \n18 \n\nHame Arsenal or Station. \n\nNavel \n\nit might be regarded \n\nContraband. \n\nIt does not seem \n\nlikely, \n\nhaving regard to the view on \n\nthis \n\nsubject, \n\nwhich has \n\nhitherto been insisted \n\nupon by France, that she \n\nwill take \n\nan extreme view \n\nupon the subject. \n\nwe have &c. \n\n(Signed) Henry \n\nW. Farrer \nJames \nHershell \n& Parker \n\nNo. 164. \n\n## The Law Officers of the Crown to Earl Granville.-(Received December 17.)\n\nMy Lord, \n\nTemple, December 17, 1870. \n\nWE are honoured with your commands signified in Mr. Hammond's letter of the 15th instant, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to inclose to us an accompanying letter from the Colonial Office, inclosing copies of two despatches from the Governor of New South Wales, on the subject of the supply of coals and contraband of war to belligerent vessels, and to request that we would take those papers into our consideration, and favour your Lordship at our earliest convenience with our opinion as to the instructions which should be addressed to the Governor of New South Wales both on the question of the supply of coal, and generally in regard to contraband of war. \n\nIn obedience to your Lordship's commands we have taken the papers into our consideration and have the honour to report \n\nThat we are not aware of any better instructions that can be given to the Colonial Governors, as to the manner in which belligerent ships of war should be dealt with, than those contained in your Lordship's Circular letter of the 19th July last, supplemented by Lord Kimberley's Circular of the 7th October. \n\nWe may observe that an erroneous idea seems to have become current at Sydney, possibly in consequence of the assertion of the Consul of the North German Confederation in his letter of the 6th September, 1870, that coal is under all circumstances contraband of war. \n\nWe think it advisable that Lord Belmore should be informed that coal is to be regarded as an article `ancipitis usus`, which may become contraband of war where it is destined to be used for purposes directly belligerent. \n\nThis question, however, is immaterial, if the opinion which we have often expressed be correct, that according to international law there is no duty on a neutral State to prevent the exportation by merchant-vessels of contraband of war to belligerents. The prevention of this trade lies with the belligerent injured by it, whose Courts adjudicate on captures, and determine what articles are, and what are not, under given circumstances, contraband of war, a question which cannot be determined beforehand by the neutral country from which they are exported. It follows that we think the view taken by the Colonial Attorney-General erroneous, and that we regard the introduction of the Colonial Bill (which we do not understand to have yet passed) as somewhat untoward. \n\nWe have, &c. \n(Signed) \nR. P. COLLIER, \nJ. D. COLERIDGE. \nTRAVERS TWISS.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-224 - Foreign Office - 1885.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334355, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 177, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "acknowledge his mistake, he seeks to obtain the reversal of his fault by bringing before the Secretary of State the decision of the Governor in Council which confirms & W. Wodehouse's finding.\n\nW. Wodehouse's duty in dealing with these cases is clearly pointed out to him in Ordinance 2 of 1850.\n\nSection 1 says: \"The Magistrate is to investigate the alleged offence in the case of a person charged with a crime or indictable offence within the Colony.\"\n\nSection III of the same Ordinance says: \"If at the close of the investigation it shall appear to the Magistrate or Court that such person as aforesaid is a subject of China and that there is probable cause for believing the said person has committed such crime or offence, it shall be lawful for such Magistrate or Court to commit such person for safe custody to prison.\"\n\nThe duty of Mr. Wodehouse required no further instructions or information respecting his duty; he had it at hand in Oke's Magisterial Synopsis Vol: 2 p. 895.\n\n#27. [When Justices to discharge or commit accused]. In Cox v. Colbridge (1 B. & C. 50) Mr Justice Bayley observed \"I think that a Magistrate is clearly bound, in the exercise of a sound discretion, not to commit any one unless a primâ facie case is made out against him by witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit.\" Justices ought not, therefore, to balance the evidence and decide according as it preponderates, for this would, in fact, be taking upon themselves the functions of the jury, trying the case; but they should consider whether or not the evidence makes out a strong,", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 334385, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "page_number": 207, "title": "CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8]", "content_text": "Magisterial Synopsis, Vol. II page 901, and in several previous cases where persons were charged with having stolen property and gave references to persons from whom they received the same, the Judges have stated that such persons should be sent for and examined with the view of exonerating or contradicting the accused. 30 and 31 Vic. C. 35 § 8 directs Justices in England to ask prisoners whether they have witnesses, and directs their examination and to be placed under recognisances like witnesses for the prosecution. Prisoners committed for trial are by local Ord. almost on the same terms as in Jervis' Act, to be informed that if they wish to make a statement they may do so, but that it will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence, and although the Act of 30 and 31 Vic. has not been formally made law here yet the practice has been to allow prisoners to call witnesses as “meet and conducive to the ends of Justice.\" In his argument the learned counsel called our attention to Clarke's work on extradition and the rules of practice in different countries. At page 177 the learned author states in reference to English practice that \"when the fugitive is apprehended he is brought before the Police Magistrate, who hears the case in the same manner, and has the same jurisdiction and powers as near as may be as if the prisoner were charged with an indictable offence committed in England,\" and he may receive evidence to show that the offence is a political one and not an extradition crime. The writer then proceeds to discuss the question as to the duty of the Magistrate to receive evidence for the prisoner. He cites various opinions, and gives the views of the late Lord Cairns, who referred to the minutes of a Conference held at Paris wherein it was stated that a prisoner brought before a magistrate would be entitled to deny his identity with the person named in the warrant. Lord Cairns stated “that as to an accused person being precluded from entering into any other defence than a denial of his identity he differed entirely from that view, for he apprehended that it would be quite open to him to produce any evidence in his power to controvert the allegations made in the depositions.\" Clarke page 185. The writer seems to take the view that the Magistrate should only hear evidence for the prosecution except as to political offences or that the crime was not an extradition crime but with all respect to the learned author we think that the English practice and the demands of justice are in accord with Lord Cairns' view and his view that was announced by this Court in 1831. See judgment of the late Mr. Justice Snowdon, 18th Nov., 1831. From the form of warrant of committal under the Extradition Act of 1870 it would appear that the prisoner is brought before the Magistrate \"to show cause why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the Extradition Act 1870, on the ground of his being accused of...\n\nand for as much as no sufficient cause has been shown to me why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the said Act: This is therefore, &c.\" In Oke's Magisterial Synopsis 898, in the footnote 29, dealing with indictable offences, the author cites Mr. Justice Bagley in Cox v. Coleridge as saying \"I think that a Magistrate is clearly bound in the exercise of a sound discretion not to commit any one unless a prima facie case is made out against him by witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit.\" Justices ought not therefore to balance the evidence and decide according as it preponderates, for this would in fact be taking upon themselves the functions of a petty jury and be trying the case. They should consider whether or not the evidence makes out a strong, or probable, or even a conflicting case of guilt. In any one of such cases they should commit the accused for trial. We think the above gives the true rule for dealing with extradition cases here, and the Magistrate should ask himself if the offence had been committed within this jurisdiction, should he commit for trial at the Supreme Court. If so he should commit under the Ordinance, and thus enable the Governor to carry out the treaty obligation. The Magistrate after investigating the case,\n\nOn the other hand, if as he does an indictable offence, comes to the conclusion that there is no probable cause for believing that the person before him committed the crimes charged, then he should not put it in the power of the Governor to deliver him up if he thought fit, but discharge him. It seems to us from a careful perusal of the documents before us that the sitting magistrate interprets prima facie case, and \"probable cause\" to mean evidence on one side—and on one side alone—but that is too narrow a meaning to put upon those terms. There may be a conflict of testimony and yet a prima facie case, or probable cause. The Magistrate refused evidence for the prisoner apparently because of some order or other that he got from the Executive Government. He does not, from the information before us, appear to have refused it of his own sense of right, and we think that in result, from whatever cause, an injustice has been done to the prisoner by the refusal of the evidence on his behalf pressed on the Magistrate. Mr. Justice Snowden in the case already cited stated that in the depositions there was no statement that the accused were called on to plead. Above all it does not appear that they were asked what they had to say in their defence although they might have been able to show beyond doubt, either mistaken identity or an alibi, or some defence within the province of the Magistrate to hear. No opportunity was afforded them to do so\". These observations we think are in accordance with justice and the present case is much stronger, for it appears that there were eight witnesses in attendance and tendered on behalf of the prisoner, and whether their evidence was worth anything or nothing in our judgment they should have been examined. On the evidence before the Magistrate there was sufficient grounds for committing the prisoner if he believed the witnesses. There was also sufficient evidence that he was a Chinese subject. For the reasons given above we think the warrant had on the face of it, and that the prisoner ought not to have been committed without being allowed to make any defence, and the Governor thus authorised if he thought fit to deliver Laung Afu to the Chinese Authorities. The deportation to another country for trial is a severe penalty in itself\" says Sir Edward Clarke at page 190 of his work on Rendition, and we think that justice requires the putting in force of the maxim audi alteram partem in rendition cases as well as in other matters. The prisoner is discharged.\n\nPage 202", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-233 - Acting Governor Cameron - 1887 [6-8].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 336035, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887", "page_number": 120, "title": "CO129-236 - Others - 1887", "content_text": "## \nHe then goes on to quote from the warrant of committal: \"Whereas it hath appeared to me a Magistrate for the said Colony, is a subject of China and that there is probable cause, &c.,\" and asks if this form is sufficient—and cites Baron Parke's Judgment, Ex. Chamber, in Howard and Grossett. 10, Q.B., at p. 411-452. Paley Conviction 182: \"In the case of special authorities given by Statutes to Justices or others acting out of the ordinary course of Common Law, the instruments by which they act, whether warrants to arrest, commitment orders, convictions or inquisitions ought, according to the course of decision, to shew their authority on the face of them by direct averment or necessary intendment.\" Mr Justice Snowden goes on to say: \"Of course greater nicety is required in the case of summary conviction, and where the commitment is in execution, than where prisoners are remanded or committed to prison for further disposal only.\" He further states that he is of opinion that in cases of rendition the accused are entitled to the protection of every formality the law throws around them, and that it is the duty of this Court before whom they claim their discharge to see that there has been no shortcoming in this respect.\n\nIn Paley on Convictions, pages 201 and 202, it is stated that the conviction must likewise specify the time and place of committing the fact complained of. The precise day need not be named if the fact be alleged to have happened between such and such a day—see also 2 Hawkins, c. 25, sec. 82. It is quite true, as Mr Francis pointed out, that Jervis' Acts have not been made the law of the Colony, and that so far as indictable offences are concerned the procedure would be in strict law according to 7 Gen. IV, c. 61. Jervis' Acts became law in England in 1849, and introduced certain changes which are pointed out in Stephens' History of the Criminal Law of England. But Sec. 1 of 7 George IV, c. 64, after describing how persons are to be examined in indictable offences with the view to commitment, indicates that evidence may be adduced by the accused—or such evidence shall be adduced on behalf of the prisoner charged, &c. 'Provided however that nothing herein contained shall be construed to require any such Justice or Justices to hear evidence on behalf of any person so charged as aforesaid unless it shall appear to him or them to be meet and conducive to the ends of Justice to hear the same.' Now Ord. 2 of 1850 directs that the magistrate shall investigate rendition cases as he would indictable offences.\n\nIn 1849 Lord Denman, C. J., said that where a person charged with felony has witnesses in attendance at the time of the examination before the magistrate they should then be examined if the prisoner wishes it. See Oke's Magisterial Synopsis, Vol. II, page 901, and in several previous cases where persons were charged with having stolen property and gave references to persons from whom they received the same the Judges have stated that such persons should be sent for and examined with the view of exonerating or contradicting the accused—3 & 3! Vic., c. 35 § 3. directs Justices in England to ask prisoners whether they have witnesses and directs their examination and to be placed under recognisances like witnesses for the prosecution. Prisoners committed for trial are by local Ord. almost in the same terms as in Jervis Act, to be informed that if they wish to make a statement they may do so, but that it will be taken down in writing and may be used in evidence, and although the act of 30 and 31 Vic. has not been formally made law here yet the practice has been to allow prisoners to call witnesses as 'meet and conducive to the ends of Justice.'\n\nIn his argument the learned counsel called our attention to Clarke's work on extradition and the rules of practice in different countries. At page 177 the learned author states in reference to English practice that when the fugitive is apprehended he is brought before the Police Magistrate, who hears the case in the same manner, and has the same jurisdiction and powers as near as may be as if the prisoner were charged with an indictable offence committed in England, and he may receive evidence to show that the offence is a political one and not an extradition crime.\n\nThe writer then proceeds to discuss the question as to the duty of the Magistrate to receive evidence for the prisoner. He cites various opinions, and gives the views of the late Lord Cairns, who referred to the minutes of a Conference held at Paris wherein it was stated that a prisoner brought before a magistrate would be entitled to deny his identity with the person named in the warrant, stated that as to an accused person being precluded from entering into any other defence than a denial of his identity he differed entirely from that view, for he apprehended that it would be quite open to him to produce any evidence in his power to controvert the allegations made in the depositions.\" Clarke page 185. The writer seems to take the view that the Magistrate should only hear evidence for the prosecution except as to political offences—or that the crime was not an extradition crime—but with all respect to the learned author we think that the English practice and the demands of justice are in accord with Lord Cairns' view and the view that was announced by this Court in 1881. See judgment of the late Mr Justice Snowden, 18th Nov., 1881.\n\nFrom the form of warrant of committal under the Extradition Act of 1870 it would appear that the prisoner is brought before the Magistrate to show why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the Extradition Act 1870, on the ground of his being accused and forasmuch \"no sufficient cause has been shown to me why he should not be surrendered in pursuance of the said Act: This is therefore, &c.\" In Oke's Magisterial Synopsis, 899, in the footnote 29, dealing with indictable offences, the author cites Mr Justice Bayley in Cox v. Coleridge as saying \"I think that a Magistrate is clearly bound in the exercise of a sound discretion not to commit any one unless a prima facie case is made out against him by witnesses entitled to a reasonable degree of credit.\" Justices ought not therefore to balance the evidence and decide according as it preponderates, for this would in fact be taking upon themselves the functions of a petty jury and be trying the case. They should consider whether or not the evidence makes out a strong or probable or even a conflicting case of guilt. In any one of such cases they should commit the accused to trial.\n\nWe think the above gives the true rule for dealing with extradition cases here, and the Magistrate should ask himself if the offence had been committed within this jurisdiction, should he commit for trial at the Supreme Court. If so he should commit under the Ordinance, and thus enable the Governor to carry out the treaty obligation. On the other hand, if the Magistrate after investigating the case, as he does an indictable offence, comes to the conclusion that there is no probable cause for believing that the person before him committed the crimes charged, then he should not put it in the power of the Governor to deliver him up if he thought fit, but discharge him.\n\nIt seems to us from a careful perusal of the documents before us that the committing Magistrate interpreted prima facie case, and 'probable cause' to mean evidence on one side—and on one side alone—but that is too narrow a meaning to put upon those terms. There may be a conflict of testimony and yet a prima facie case, or probable cause. The Magistrate refused evidence for the prisoner apparently because of some order or other that he got from the Executive Government. He does not, from the information before us, appear to have refused it of his own sense of right, and we think that in result, from whatever cause, an injustice has been done to the prisoner by the refusal of the evidence on his behalf pressed on the Magistrate. Mr. Justice Snowden in the case already cited stated that in the depositions there was no statement that the accused were called on to plead. Above all it does not appear that they were asked what they had to say in their defence although they might have been able to show beyond doubt, either mistaken identity or an alibi, or some...\n\nPage 120\nPage 121", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-236 - Others - 1887.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 341167, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-244 - Governor Des Voeus Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [1-4]", "page_number": 193, "title": "CO129-244 - Governor Des Voeus Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [1-4]", "content_text": "My Lord,\n\nI have the honour to transmit to Your Lordship the enclosed memorial from Mr. Edward James Ackroyd, the Registrar of the Supreme Court.\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 11th March, 1890.\n\nTo\n\nThe Right Honourable\n\nLord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.\n\n[Page 192]\n\n6758\n\n14 APR 90\n\nuty of ill health and it is my intention to apply for this leave of Colaucie Treasurer en attendant fretting belly Suche that my assistant may receive a good attention. I beg to state that Mr. Alexander, who acts as Registrar of the court, was Coleridge Treasurer No 59. In addition, Coleridge has been Treasurer for five years, and I trust that my precedent may be followed.\n\nI cure especially,\n\nSam ui cuff,\n\nhee daest huolie seivaut here\n\nBelieve me,\n\nYours faithfully,\n\nSir William de Wiveleslie, Governor.\n\n[The original letter appears to be from Sir William de Wiveleslie, Governor, to Lord Knutsford, with a mention of a memorial from Mr. Edward James Ackroyd.]\n\nbeughly\n\nSuw Stenroud\n\n \nIt seems like there are two different letters/documents here. The first part appears to be a draft or a letter discussing a leave of absence for a \"Colaucie Treasurer\" and mentions Mr. Alexander acting as Registrar. The second part is a formal letter from the Governor of Hong Kong to Lord Knutsford, transmitting a memorial from Mr. Edward James Ackroyd.\n\nAfter re-examining the text and following the instructions:\n\nMy Lord,\n\nI have the honour to transmit to Your Lordship the enclosed memorial from Mr. Edward James Ackroyd, the Registrar of the Supreme Court.\n\nGovernment House, Hongkong, 11th March, 1890.\n\nThe Right Honourable\n\nLord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.\n\nPage 192\n\n6758\n\n14 APR 90\n\nOn account of ill health and it is my intention to apply for this leave of Coleridge Treasurer, in the meantime fretting greatly that my assistant may receive a good attention. I beg to state that Mr. Alexander, who acts as Registrar of the court, was Coleridge Treasurer No 59. In addition, Coleridge has been Treasurer for five years, and I trust that my precedent may be followed.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\nSir William de Wiveleslie, Governor.\n\nHere is the revised version in HTML format as requested:\n\nOn account of ill health and it is my intention to apply for this leave of Coleridge Treasurer, in the meantime fretting greatly that my assistant may receive a good attention. I beg to state that Mr. Alexander, who acts as Registrar of the court, was Coleridge Treasurer No 59. In addition, Coleridge has been Treasurer for five years, and I trust that my precedent may be followed.\n\nYours faithfully,\n\nSuw Stenroud\n\nMy Lord,\n\nI have the honour to transmit to Your Lordship the enclosed memorial from Mr. Edward James Ackroyd, the Registrar of the Supreme Court.\n\nGovernment House,\n\nHongkong, 11th March, 1890.\n\nThe Right Honourable\n\nLord Knutsford, G.C.M.G.\n\nPage 192\n\n6758\n\n14 APR 90", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-244 - Governor Des Voeus Acting Governor Fleming - 1890 [1-4].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 373344, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12]", "page_number": 74, "title": "CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12]", "content_text": "71\n\n(See Moore on the foreshore 3rd. Ed. pp. 234, 256 and 856. \nSee too Embleton v. Brown 3 E. and E. 234. See too Russell on \nCrimes Vol. 1: p. 10, and Coleridge Institute 3 p. 113 See too Hale's \nPleas of the Crown Vol. 2 pages 16 and 17.)\n\nThe Chinese Government have, by last year's convention, \nmerely granted to us the waters of the Bay, and they have not \nsaid a single word about any shore rights, and I advise, there-\nfore, especially in view of recent disturbances, that we keep \non the safe side and assume that we have no ownership of the \nsoil between high and low water mark.\n\nIt is one of the disadvantages of not having taken \nover the whole of the San On District that we find ourselves in \nthis exceedingly difficult and rather humiliating position.\n\nIt seems very desirable that we should, if possible, \nbring up, by way of a friendly deal, the rights or the parties \nto the foreshore and to the approaches to it. Even if the fore-\nshore is British territory I quite agree with what His Excel-\nlency says in his minute of the 23rd. instant as to its not \nbeing proper for us, under the terms of the convention, to \ndeprive the parties of their rights without compensation.\n\n(Signed.) H.E.Pollock, \nActing Attorney General. \n28-9-99.\n\nP.S. I would suggest that, as some difference of opinion has \narisen here as to the ownership of Great Britain of the fore-\nshore in question, it might be advisable to refer the conside-\nration of the question to the Law Officers in England.\n\n(Signed.) H.E.Pollock, \nActing Attorney General. \n28-9-99.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-294 - Governor Sir Blake - 1899 [10-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 390963, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "page_number": 516, "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "content_text": "# INTERPRETATION OF EXTRADITION TREATIES.\n\nIn my judgment these treaties ought to receive a liberal interpretation, which means no more than that they should receive their true construction according to their language, object, and intent. I know no head of the French law for which an exact equivalent is to be found in the law of England. The English and French texts of the treaty are not translations of one another. They are different versions, but versions which, on the whole, are in substantial agreement.\n\nPer Lord RUSSELL, C.J., In re Arton, L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132.\n\n# ON APPEAL, NEW MATERIALS MAY BE PRESENTED TO THE KING'S BENCH DIVISION BESIDES WHAT WAS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATE,\n\nPer DENMAN, J.: The Act itself requires the Magistrate to inform the prisoner that he may apply for a habeas corpus, and, if he is entitled to apply for a habeas corpus, justice must have power to go into the whole matter, and I think it follows that the Queen's Bench Division in some cases, if there be certainly fresh evidence and cogent evidence, it could not say for a moment that it would feel itself crippled by the mere fact that the Magistrate, upon much less evidence, or perhaps upon the same evidence had taken a different view of the matter.\n\nPer HAWKINS, J.: If a man has a right to move for a habeas corpus in order that the case may be reviewed, it would be an absurdity to say that he might not enter into those matters which showed that he had been guilty of no offence at all; and by no means was the matter concluded by the Magistrate's decision that he be committed for trial, because the Magistrate does not sit, when he is committing for trial, as a Magistrate sitting finally to dispose of the case, and to give judgment upon it. I think that they (the provisions of the Act) are quite sufficient certainly to satisfy me that the Magistrate's decision is by no means binding, either in point of law or in point of fact, and that, when these matters come to be considered upon the habeas corpus, if the Judges have to consider the case, they must consider the case as it is before them at the time the rule is discussed, and I think that we are not bound by, though we pay respect to, what the Magistrate's views were.\n\nIn re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.\n\n(But see also later case of In re Arton (p. 23), L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (I) 509; 65 L.J.M.C. 50; 18 Cox C.C. 277; 60 J.P. 132, where Lord Russell, C.J., said: \"We are not a Court of Appeal on questions of fact from him (the Magistrate). We have only to see that he had such evidence before him as gave him authority and jurisdiction to commit.\")\n\n(See also In re Arton (p. 23), L.R. Q.B.D. 1896 (1) 108; 65 L.J.M.C. 23, where Lord Russell, C.J., said \"The Court is bound to see whether or not a prima facie case has been made out before the Magistrate.\")\n\nPage 7\n\n# EX PARTE BOUVIER. France.\n\n21st November, 1872.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: COCKBURN, C.J., MELLOR and BLACKBURN, JJ.\n\n42 L.J. Q.B. 17; 12 Cox C.C. 303; 27 L.T. (N.S.) 844. Committed for extradition, by Police Magistrate of Jersey, for \"fuum et banqueroute frauduleuse.\" The French warrant had been granted upon a judgment of an Assize Court, on which Bouvier had been condemned on three several charges of abus de confiance, forgery, and fraudulent bankruptcy. Abus de confiance was not an offence included in the Convention of 13th February, 1843.\n\nContended: No power under the Convention or under the Act of 1870 to surrender for abus de confiance. No power to surrender the criminal inasmuch as no provision or arrangement had been made as required by section 3 (2) of the Extradition Act, 1870.\n\nAffidavit of the officially appointed Counsel to the French Embassy put in as to the state of French law.\n\nHeld: That under the existing law of France such provision is made.\n\n(See also case of United States v. Lawrence, 13 Cox C.C. 361)\n\n(And see now Article IV. of the treaty with France of 14th August, 1876.)\n\n# EX PARTE ELISE COUNHAYE.\n\nBelgium.\n\n23rd May, 1873.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH : BLACKBURN, QUAIN, and ARCHIBALD, JJ.\n\nL.R. 8 Q.B. 410; 42 L.J.Q.B. 217.\n\nAccused of complicity in her husband's bankruptcy.\n\nContended: (i.) Complicity in a fraudulent bankruptcy is not a crime within the Extradition Act.\n\nA treaty cannot extend the Act. (ii.) The facts charged were committed before the Act was passed, and section 6 does not apply to crimes committed before the Act was passed.\n\n(i.) The depositions were not taken before the Magistrate who issued the warrant as required by Article II. of the treaty.\n\n(iv.) The depositions are not receivable not having been taken in the presence of the accused.\n\n(v.) The Belgian warrant is bad, charging crime in France; and it is not for the same crime as the English commitment.\n\nPer COLERIDGE, A.G. - Accessories before the fact are not mentioned in the Schedule to the Act because at common law they are in effect the same as principals, and aiders and abettors can by statute be tried as well as punished as principals.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 390969, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "page_number": 522, "title": "CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12]", "content_text": "18\n\n19\n\nIN RE ALICE WOODALL. U.S.A.\n\n5th May, 1888.\n\nCOURT OF APPEAL: Lord ESHER, M.R., LINDLEY, L.J., and Bowen, L.J.\n\nL.R. 20 Q.B.D. 832; 57 LJ.M.C. 71.\n\nThe accused having been committed for surrender, application was made to a Divisional Court for an order nisi for the issue of a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that the Magistrate had declined to adjourn the case in order that evidence in favour of the accused might be obtained from New York, and that upon the evidence before the Magistrate he ought not to have committed. The Divisional Court refused the order on these grounds. Motion was now made, by way of appeal, for an order nisi.\n\nHeld: That the decision of the Queen's Bench Division was given in a \"criminal cause or matter\" within section 47 of the Judicature Act, 1873, and therefore no appeal would lie to the Court of Appeal.\n\nIN RE ALICE WOODALL.\n\nU.S.A.\n\n9th May, 1888.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH: Lord COLERIDGE, C.J., FIELD and WILLS, JJ.\n\n57 L.J.M.C. 72; 16 Cox C.C. 478.\n\nPrisoner had been committed for extradition on two charges of forgery. A rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus was obtained on the ground that there was no sufficient provision made by the Government of the United States that she should not be tried for an offence other than that for which she was extradited, as required by the Extradition Act, section 3 (2).\n\nHeld (discharging the rule)\n\nThat the United States Government had made provision for this sub-section, and that a fugitive criminal would be tried there solely for the offence in respect of which he had been surrendered. This point had been clearly raised and decided in the United States v. Rauscher, which, as a decision of the Supreme Court of America, was binding on all Courts within the Union.\n\n(It is mentioned in the report (Cox) of this case that in consequence of Lawrence having been tried in the United States for offences other than those for which he was surrendered, the British Government refused to surrender Winslow without a pledge that the prisoner should not be tried except for the offence for which he was extradited; the United States refused to give this pledge, and Winslow was never surrendered.)\n\n(For case of United States v. Lawrence see 13 Cox C.C. 361.) (And see now Article III. of United States Supplementary Convention of 1889.)\n\nIN RE GUERIN.\n\nFrance.\n\n12th, 13th November, 1888.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH : WILLS and GRANTHAM, JJ.\n\n58 L.J.M.C. 42; 16 Cox C.C. 596; 53 J.P. 467; 60 L.T. (N.S.) 558 ; 37 W.R. 289.\n\nThe prisoner had been arrested on a charge of larceny in France, and brought up before Sir J. Ingham, before whom evidence was given on six occasions ; then Mr. Vaughan took up the case, and on five days heard evidence, and then committed the prisoner for extradition.\n\nA rule nisi for a writ of habeas corpus was granted on the grounds that no evidence of the prisoner's crime had been given before Mr. Vaughan, and that the magistrate's decision as to nationality was wrong.\n\nHeld That the judicial discretion which a Magistrate has to exercise on cases brought before him must be based on the evidence taken before him, and it is not competent for him to act upon evidence taken before another Magistrate. There was however sufficient evidence before Mr. Vaughan without that which was taken before Sir J. Ingham; and the order nisi was discharged.\n\nAs to the question of nationality, it was\n\nHeld That the Queen's Bench Division has a right to review the finding of the Magistrate upon a matter of fact which is cardinal to the existence of his jurisdiction and collateral to the subject of enquiry.\n\nBy direction of the Court--the affidavits as to nationality being conflicting --an issue was tried on 20th and 21st December before HUDDLeston, B., and a common jury as to whether prisoner was a \"native born or naturalised subject\" of this country; this was found against the prisoner.\n\n(See also ex parte Hugel, 12 Cox C.C. 551; 29 L.T. (N.S.) 41; and In re Castioni, L.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T. (N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.\n\nRE CASTIONI, Switzerland.\n\n10th, 11th November, 1890.\n\nQUEEN'S BENCH:\n\nDENMAN, HAWKINS and STEPHEN, JJ.\n\nL.R. Q.B.D. 1891 (1) 149; 60 L.J.M.C. 22; 64 L.T.(N.S.) 344; 17 Cox C.C. 225; 55 J.P. 328.\n\nCastioni took part in an insurrection which broke out in the Canton of Ticino, and he and others, having seized arms from the arsenal, and seized five persons connected with the Government, bound them, and marched to the Government House, where they were refused admittance by Councillors Rossi and Gianella with about 80 gendarmes. The gates were broken, and the people rushed in; a second locked door was broken open, and Rossi, who was in the\n\n10529\n\n0 2\n\n516", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-320 - Governor Sir Blake Acting Governor May - 1903 [11-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 393017, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "page_number": 198, "title": "CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7]", "content_text": "Notice brought to the\n\nHis Majesty\n\nNo.\n\n1904\n\nJuly\n\nSerious Paper.\n\nGB779 Tv.\n\nMONO TONG\n\nSVAAL\n\nNo 238L\n\n(Subject.)\n\nDESPATCH.\n\nC.O.\n\n238/197\n\nReceived Rest 5 JUL 34\n\nWives & families of Chinese coolies have registered addresses, Sweeddale, 308/\n\n(Minutes.)\n\nSeen. The Duke of Marlborough quoted his telegram in replying to a question by Land Coleridge in the House of Commons yesterday. See further lidder li Imal HaB.\n\nJuly 6\n\nSubsequent Paper.\n\n23779\n\nhot 617", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-323 - Acting Governor May Governor Nathan - 1904 [6-7].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 447539, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]", "page_number": 81, "title": "CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5]", "content_text": "FJ\n\nIt was contended on behalf of the fugitive that the act of embezzlement began in Canton and was concluded in Hongkong and Reg. v. Holmes, 12 Q.B.D., 23, was relied on. In that case the defendant wrote and posted at Nottingham a letter addressed to G, at a town in France containing a false pretence by means of which he induced G. to send from France to Nottingham a draft for £150 which defendant then cashed. It was held that there was jurisdiction to try the defendant at Nottingham, the pretence having been made at Nottingham, where the money obtained by means of it was received. Lord Coleridge C. J. said, \"of the two necessary ingredients of the offence both take place in Nottingham. It may be that one important part of the offence taking place in Nottingham would be sufficient, but here both ingredients take place in Nottingham.\" That case has no bearing on this; the alleged conversion into money of the valuable security delivered to the fugitive was in Hongkong and not in China, and in my opinion the conditions necessary to sustain a charge of embezzlement in China were not complied with.\n\nNow in regard to the alleged theft of the payment-out book. The evidence is simple and I have carefully considered it and having arrived at the conclusion that the question of guilty intention is within the Magistrate's discretion to decide, and that he would be within his right in considering all the circumstances surrounding the fugitive's action in coming to a decision on this point. It appears that the fugitive was himself employed in the Treasury and that it was his ordinary duty to examine the book in question, which he obtained from another Treasury official, Ngai Ur-ping, on 4th August, which as a fact was the day that Chan Kwing-ming fled from Canton; and that he was seen to take the book into the street and that it was never returned or seen again, nor was the fugitive. The suggestion presumably is that he took the book to screen himself from the discovery of defalcation although there was no evidence of it. I am unable to say that there is no evidence of larceny which will justify this Court in saying that the Magistrate in this particular has exceeded his jurisdiction, or that there was no prima facie case upon which the defendant could have been committed for trial on an indictable charge.\n\nAs to the contention put forward on behalf of the fugitive that the Crown should have proved the law of China which is applicable to the offences in question, I intimated in the course of the hearing the view which I took. I have read the views which are fully expressed by my learned brother on the point and I entirely agree with the deductions at which he has arrived and I have nothing to add.\n\nOn the contention that the alleged offence if an offence at all is a political one, I shall deal with briefly.\n\nFirstly, the onus of establishing that the offence is of a political character is upon the fugitive and if the Magistrate decides that it is not of a political character his decision is subject to review by this Court. By Section 4 of the Ordinance a fugitive shall not be surrendered if the offence in respect of which his surrender is demanded is one of a political character or if he proves to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that the requisition for his surrender has in fact been made with a view to try or punish him for an offence of a political character. The onus of proof is upon the person who seeks to be discharged (see judgment of Hawkins J. at p. 162, in Re Castioni, 1891, 7 Q.B.). Then what is the evidence? The Tutu's order (Exhibit 8) upon which the drafts were received was \"to remit the money to Shanghai to be sent in turn to Nanking to be used as Military expenditure.\" The drafts as already pointed out were made out at Canton to the fugitive in his own name and were subsequently negotiated by him and the amount or part of it deposited in his own account in a Hongkong Bank.\n\n80", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-410 - Governor Sir May - 1914 [3-5].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 452070, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-418 - Public Offices & Others - 1914", "page_number": 428, "title": "CO129-418 - Public Offices & Others - 1914", "content_text": "# COPY.\n\n422 ASHMORE ROAD, \nPADDINGTON, \nLONDON, W. \n13th October, 1914.\n\nre Letter of Request to Hong Kong.\n\nI herewith draw your attention to the fact, that up to the present, I have not yet received from the Secretary of the Colony of Hong Kong a letter showing that my Writ issued pursuant to the Order of the 22nd of May of the Hon. Mr Justice Coleridge has been served on the Siah Indiapoera Rubber Concessions Ltd. as Co-defendants in my pending action Nijhuis v. Craig & Others No.439 N.1914.\n\nI therefore would be much obliged if you would make inquiries as to what has caused this delay.\n\nI have the honour to be, \nSir, \nYour Obedient Servant, \nG.J. NIJHUIS. (Plaintiff).\n\nThe Chief Officer of the \nWrit Department of the \nHigh Court of Justice, \nStrand, LONDON.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-418 - Public Offices & Others - 1914.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 492944, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "page_number": 297, "title": "CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12]", "content_text": "291\n\n(1835) 7 C. and P. 187, where Coleridge, J., admitted oral evidence of such an observation. Russell on Crimes, 7th ed., p. 2224, expresses the view that R. v. Weller cannot be supported.\n\nThe authority of most of the cases cited in the books on this point is perhaps subject to some doubt in this Colony, because nearly all the cases were under 7 Geo.4, c.64, which requires Justices to \"take the examination\" of the prisoner. However, in R. v. Taylor (1875) 13 Cox 77, Brett, J., seems to have assumed that such an observation could be proved by the depositions, though he allowed oral proof in that particular case. What was there proved was a question by the prisoner in cross-examining a witness.\n\n15. Section 10 of the Ordinance directs the magistrate to take down such observations, and it makes the depositions evidence of any such observation, so taken down, without prejudice to any other method of proof. The clause also applies to any evidence given by the accused before the magistrate. Probably the whole section is merely declaratory.\n\n16. It may be noted that under 1 and 2 Vict., c.105, an oath may be administered in any form which the witness declares to be binding on him.\n\n17. In order to indicate the history of the various provisions, the marginal references have been extended to Ordinances in Hongkong and have not been confined to English Acts.\n\n18. Strictly speaking, section 3 should have referred to the Evidence (Amendment) Ordinance, 1915.\n\n19.", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-476 - Acting Governor Claud Severn & Governor Sir Stubbs - 1922 [8-12].txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535033, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 34, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "GENERAL.\n\nThe Law Officers are accordingly requested to advise :-\n\n(1) Whether the case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong was, in their opinion, rightly decided; if so (2) Whether, assuming that satisfactory proof of intent to commit piracy is forthcoming, a foreigner who on the high seas assaults with intent to murder any person on board a vessel, could be convicted in the Courts of this country under 1 Vic., c. 88, or in the Colonial Courts under 12 & 13 Vic., c. 96.\n\n(3) Whether the Imperial Parliament could properly be invited to pass legislation conferring jurisdiction to try foreigners in the circumstances indicated in (2).\n\n(4) Whether it is expedient to refer to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council any question arising out of the matters discussed in this case, and, if so, to settle the suggested terms of reference.\n\n(5) Generally on the case.\n\nOpinion of the Law Officers of the Crown and Mr. Wilfrid Lewis.\n\nIn our opinion the question whether or not the full court of Hong Kong arrived at a correct decision in quashing the conviction in the above case can only be satisfactorily answered by approaching the matter de novo.\n\nIt is thus necessary to decide at the outset what jurisdiction the Hong Kong Court had to try the twelve prisoners. They were Chinese subjects in a Chinese vessel upon the high seas. Although it is not expressly so stated, we feel entitled to assume that the acts with which the prisoners were charged were not committed inter fauces terrae, and took place more than 3 miles from the coast of Hong Kong so as to be outside the zone provided by the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act, 1878. From the above circumstances it results that these prisoners, in the absence of any relevant statute applying to foreigners when outside that zone and in foreign ships, were for no purpose subject to Imperial municipal law. These prisoners, however, were liable to be tried and punished for offences committed outside the 3-mile zone if amounting to piracy jure gentium. Reference should be made to the exhaustive judgment of Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn (1876 2 Exch. D. 63 at pp. 159 to 238), where the history and scope of English criminal jurisdiction over foreigners upon the seas was traced and examined.\n\nIt will be convenient to postpone dealing with the questions whether actual robbery is an essential element in the crime of piracy jure gentium or whether a frustrated attempt to commit a piratical robbery is not equally piracy and justiciable as such, and to deal first with the question whether Imperial Courts have jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships who commit outside the 3-mile zone offences made punishable as piracy by British or Imperial Statutes.\n\nIn this connection the propositions of Cockburn C. J. in Reg. v. Keyn can be stated broadly as follows: Up to the 16th century the jurisdiction of English criminal courts was confined to crimes committed within the body of a county, while crimes at sea were subject to the jurisdiction of the Admiral (pp. 162, 167). Thus piracy jure gentium was never a felony at common law. Subsequently, in the reign of Richard II the respective jurisdictions were allowed to overlap, to the extent that in murder and mayhem done in great ships in the mouths of great rivers the Admiral was accorded concurrent jurisdiction with the common law (p. 168). And so English criminal law remained until 1878. Cockburn C. J. examined the statute 28 Henry VIII, c. 15, and reached the conclusion (pp. 169 and 209) that it created no new offence and did not render foreigners liable to any English Court when they were not previously so liable: the statute merely transferred the existing jurisdiction of the Admiral to commissioners appointed by the King, and the only jurisdiction over foreigners for crimes committed on the high seas being derived from the civil law the commissioners received no further or greater jurisdiction under the statute of Henry VIII than the Admiral possessed and no power to apply English criminal law to foreigners in circumstances where the Admiral could not apply it (p. 169). And this position was not altered by the statute 4 & 5 William IV, c. 36 (which gave the Central Criminal Court jurisdiction) or 7 & 8 Vict., c. 2, which gave power to ordinary Courts of Assize to try offences committed on the high seas and within the jurisdiction of the Admiral.\n\nGENERAL.\n\n3\n\nAdmittedly piracy jure gentium was within the jurisdiction of the Admiral, and to this extent the Commissioners (subsequently the Central Criminal Court and Assize Courts) obtained jurisdiction over foreigners committing crimes in foreign ships on the high seas, though Cockburn C. J. admitted that if Parliament had expressly asserted a more extended jurisdiction it would have been the duty of the Courts to recognise and endeavour to enforce such jurisdiction (pp. 160 and 207). At p. 208 he examined the question whether English municipal law either expressly or by implication had been extended to foreigners in foreign ships on the high seas. After approving the doctrine laid down by Turner L. J. in Cope v. Doherty (1858 2 De G. & J. 614 at 624 affirming 4 K. & J. 367) that Parliament must not be presumed to have legislated for foreigners and that to warrant such a conclusion the words of an Act ought to be express or its context very clear, Cockburn C. J. reached the conclusion that, up to 1876, no provision had been made by Parliament for trying foreigners for crimes committed generally upon the seas in foreign ships (p. 213), while such legislation as had been applied either expressly or impliedly to foreigners within what may for convenience be termed territorial waters had dealt with the revenue, customs, the protection of fisheries and kindred matters.\n\nWe feel satisfied that Cockburn C. J. in his exhaustive analysis of the law would have commented on such acts as the Suppression of Piracy Act, 1698 (Halsbury's Statutes IV, p. 334), the Piracy Act, 1821 (p. 343 op. cit.), the Offences at Sea Acts, 1799 and 1806 (pp. 401 and 417), the Murders Abroad Act, 1817 (p. 440), the Piracy Act, 1837 (p. 461), the Admiralty Offences Act, 1844 (p. 476), and the Piracy Act, 1850 (p. 520), had he considered that the provisions of any of those Acts either expressly or impliedly referred to foreigners, for, although the crime charged in Reg. v. Keyn was manslaughter, the principle at issue was sufficiently wide to render relevant the various municipal Acts dealing with piracy had the advocates in the case or other members of the Court cited them as conferring statutory criminal jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships.\n\nUp to 1878, therefore, we think that, while for the purpose of regulating national defence and such matters as customs and revenue, municipal law had in certain cases been applied to foreigners in foreign ships at sea, there was no statute which had extended the jurisdiction of our criminal courts in respect of crimes committed by foreigners at sea, unless committed on board a British ship or falling under the definition of piracy jure gentium. The ratio decidendi of Cockburn C. J. and the majority of the Court was responsible for the drafting of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. The effect of that Act was to declare and enact (see the preamble and per Coleridge C. J. in R. v. Dudley and Stephen, 14 Q.B.D. at 281), that the jurisdiction of our courts extended to all offences committed within 3 miles of the coast; but, subject to that extension, we think that the law of the high seas remains to-day as it was stated by Cockburn C. J. (see Harris v. steamship \"Franconia,\" 1877, 2 C.P.D. 173, and the Fagernes, 1927 P, 311).\n\nThus, in our opinion, Section 2 of the Piracy Act, 1837, does not assist, except in so far as it affects the question of punishment.\n\nWe think that the object of this Act was not the definition of the crime of piracy, but the regulation of its punishment. It must be remembered that at this time statutory revisions of punishments, and more particularly capital punishment, was occupying the attention of the Legislature see, for instance, the Criminal Law Act, 1827, Section 7, the Forgery Act, 1837, and the Punishment of Offences Act, 1837. We think the object of the Piracy Act, 1837, was to retain the death penalty in cases of piracy with violence, but in other cases of statutory or municipal piracy to substitute transportation for death (Section 3). Moreover, if actual robbery is an essential ingredient in piracy, the Section carries the matter no further; if it is not, it is unnecessary to invoke the section.\n\nAccordingly, in our opinion, it would not have been correct to indict these twelve prisoners under the Piracy Act, 1837, Section 2, or any other provision of English municipal law relating to piracy.\n\nOn the other hand, we do not agree with what we understand to be the view of the Hong Kong Court, that they were not competent to try a charge of piracy jure gentium. We entertain no doubt that the Hong Kong Court possesses jurisdiction over foreigners accused of piracy jure gentium. We think such jurisdiction was inherent under international law, upon the doctrine that the\n\n[7653]\n\nB 2\n\n34", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 }, { "id": 535052, "series_id": 27, "series_slug": "histsyn-co129-engine", "series_title": "CO129 Colonial Office Hong Kong Records 理藩院香港檔案", "series_use_hku_proxy": false, "document_key": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "page_number": 53, "title": "CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933", "content_text": "54\n\n-4-\n\nexhaustive analysis of the law would have commented on such acts as the Suppression of Piracy Act 1698 (Halsbury's Statutes IV p.334), the Piracy Act 1821 (p.343 op. cit.), the Offences at Sea Acts 1799 and 1806 (pp.401 and 417), the Murders Abroad Act 1817 (p.440), the Piracy Act 1837 (p.461), the Admiralty Offences Act 1844 (p.476) and the Piracy Act 1850 (p.520) had he considered that the provisions of any of those Acts either expressly or impliedly referred to foreigners, for although the crime charged in Reg. v. Keyn was manslaughter the principle at issue was sufficiently wide to render relevant the various municipal Acts dealing with piracy had the advocates in the case or other members of the Court cited them as conferring statutory criminal jurisdiction over foreigners in foreign ships.\n\nUp to 1878 therefore we think that while for the purpose of regulating national defence and such matters as customs and revenue, municipal law had in certain cases been applied to foreigners in foreign ships at sea, there was no statute which had extended the jurisdiction of our criminal Courts in respect of crimes committed by foreigners at sea unless committed on board a British ship or falling under the definition of piracy 'jure gentium'. The ratio decidendi of Cockburn C.J. and the majority of the Court was responsible for the drafting of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act of 1878. The effect of that Act was to declare and enact (see the preamble and per Coleridge C.J. in R. v. Dudley and Stephen, 14 Q.B.D. at 281), that the jurisdiction of our Courts extended to all offences committed within three miles of the coast; but subject to that extension we think that the law of the high seas remains to-day as it was stated by Cockburn C.J. (see\n\nHarris/", "txt_file_path": "txt/2diw2n4r2/CO129-541-1 Piracy- case of Rex v. Chung Tam Kwong 29-7-1932 - 3-2-1933.txt", "external_url": "", "rank": 0 } ]