§ SIR CHARLES W. DILKEsaid, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether, considering that by the terms of the Treaty between Great Britain and Siam, it was agreed that British subjects guilty of crimes in the latter country should be 1525 punished by our Consul, and considering that without the consent of the Siamese certain jurisdiction in such matters has been transferred to Singapore, distant 865 miles from Bangkok, and that hardships arise from the transfer, it would not be possible that one of the Judges in the Straits Settlements should make a circuit to Bangkok after the practice followed in China?
§ MR. MONSELLsaid, in reply, that he had submitted his hon. Friend's Question to the Foreign Office, and was informed that the right of appeal to the Singapore Court was given by the Order in Council of July 28, 1856, and had been in existence from that time to the present without any objection being made to it by the Siamese Government or by litigants in Siam. The Return laid before Parliament on the 14th of February last showed that the right of appeal had not been exercised during the 10 years 1859 to 1868. The case was altogether different to that of China, where at Shanghai there was a thriving British mercantile community and an established Bar. To send a Judge from Singapore to Bangkok on circuit in pursuit of appeals would unnecessarily encourage litigation and be a great expense. Moreover, it was doubtful whether a Judge could be spared, or would be willing to make such a journey. By the terms of the Treaty British jurisdiction in Siam was limited to the Consul, and could not be exorcised by a Singapore Judge without further international agreement with Siam and a fresh Order in Council. In short, neither the Siamese Government nor British merchants had expressed any wish for a local Court of Appeal, and there was, as far as Her Majesty's Government were aware, no foundation for the statement that any hardships arose under the present state of Consular jurisdiction in Siam.