« ПретходнаНастави »
clusively with matters of religion. The next day, December 11, 1685, another treaty, unpublished as yet, this time a commercial one, was executed by the Siamese and French plenipotentiaries.
The first treaty granted the missionaries the privilege of preaching the Christian law in Siam and guaranteed tolerance for such converts as might be made. The French request that, in order to avoid any attempts at the persecution of converts, a qualified Siamese "mandarin" might be appointed to hear and judge all such cases, was granted but with the qualification that the mandarin must refer such matters to one of the judges of the king before passing sentence. It was, also, agreed that if the missionaries did not transgress the privileges conferred upon them by the treaty, their affairs should be judged by a mandarin presented by the bishop but appointed by the king.
The second treaty of M. de Chaumont contains a request that the French servants of the Compagnie des Indes Orientates, as well as the French not connected with that company, who were not in the service of the king, might be judged as to disputes among themselves by the captain of the company, who was, also, to have authority to punish any of the French guilty of theft. The king, responding to this request, granted that the French, not in his service or in that of his ministers, who committed theft or any other culpable act, should be left for punishment to the French captain. If any one of the parties should not be satisfied with the judgment of the captain and should request that justice should be done by the king's ministers, the execution of the judgment should be stayed until the king of France had been informed and had given directions. If any of the servants of the company should commit any act worthy of judicial consideration, whether civil or criminal, against any one not French, the French captain was to sit with the Siamese judges to determine the case according to the laws of Siam. The king expressed the belief, however, that it would be better if a French judge should be appointed as this would relieve the officers of the company of a burden which might interfere with their commercial duties.
The provisions of this treaty were not completely satisfactory to France, and in 1687 another embassy, headed by MM. de la Loubere and Ceberet, was sent to Siam. This mission negotiated another treaty,' which was signed at Lopburi on December 11, 1687. In this, the principal officer of the company was given full jurisdiction in all disputes, both civil and criminal, in which only individuals in the company's service were involved, whether French or of any other nationality. If one of the parties was not in the service of the company, the jurisdiction remained in the king of Siam, but the principal officer of the company was to have the right to sit in the court and to have a definite voice in the determination of the case, after taking an oath to judge according to right and justice.
• Journal of the Siam Society, Vol. 14, part 2, pp. 23, 30.
The Siamese plenipotentiary in the treaties negotiated by M. de Chaumont was the famous Constantine Phaulcon, a Greek, who had been brought to Siam in an English ship, probably as a cabin boy, and had risen, after several unsuccessful adventures on his own account, in one of which he was shipwrecked, to the high position of favorite and chief minister of the king. Not without some reason, he came to be suspected of secret dealings with the French and, shortly after the treaty of 1687, the Siamese nobles, alarmed by the presence of French troops in the country, rose in revolt. Phaulcon was killed and, the king opportunely dying, the dynasty was changed and the French efforts came to nothing.
During most of the eighteenth century, Siam was occupied with civil war and with invasions by the Burmese. In 1757, the Burmese took the province of Tenasserim and ten years later Ayuthia fell. The capital was transferred to Bangkok and the first king of the present dynasty, the Chakri, was called to the throne in 1782. The new king, officially known today as Rama I, building upon the work of his immediate predecessor, who had not founded a dynasty, restored the country to a condition of peace, and relations with the European world, largely, if not entirely, suspended during most of the previous century, were resumed early in the nineteenth.
Perhaps in 1820, certainly about that time, the Portuguese sent an envoy who may have made a treaty. If he did, the text has been lost. However, he obtained permission to trade and consent was given for the establishment of a consulate, the first in Siam. The success of the experiment must have been doubtful for no other consulates were established until 1855, under the terms of the British treaty of that year.
About the same time, the British were trying to secure a commercial treaty. An attempt in 1822 failed, but in 1826, on June 20, a treaty,* the first with Great Britain of which there is certain knowledge, was signed. No provision was made for a consul and the treaty provided that English and Siamese when in the country of the other must conduct themselves according to the established laws of that country, Siam or England, in every particular.
Shortly afterwards, on March 20, 1833, a treaty7 with the United States was signed at Bangkok, which provided that: "Merchants of the United States trading in the Kingdom of Siam shall respect and follow the laws and customs of the country in all points."
This was the last treaty, so far as is known, entered into by Siam prior to the establishment of consular jurisdiction in 1855. While the treaties of the seventeenth century undoubtedly contained the germs of an exterritorial system, they had long since become obsolete and inoperative and it is not, therefore, too much to say that in 1855 exterritoriality was unknown in Siam.
• British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 23, p. 1153.
1Ibid., Vol. 20, p. 590. There had been American ships engaged in trade with Siam since 1855-1874
On April 18, 1855, there was signed at Bangkok a new treaty8 with Great Britain, the effect of which was to establish a radically different system of jurisdiction. This treaty, generally known as the Bowring treaty, after the British envoy, Sir John Bowring,' at that time the governor of Hongkong, provided that:
II. The interests of all British subjects coming to Siam shall be placed under the regulation and control of a consul, who will be appointed to reside at Bangkok. . . . Any dispute arising between Siamese and British subjects shall be heard and determined by the consul, in conjunction with the proper Siamese officers; and criminal offences will be punished, in the case of English offenders, by the consul, according to English laws, and in the case of Siamese offenders, by their own laws through the Siamese authorities. But the consul shall not interfere in any matters referring solely to Siamese, neither will the Siamese authorities interfere in questions which concern only the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty.
On May 13, 1856, an agreement10 supplementary to the treaty of 1855 was executed in which were made certain explanations and amplifications of the provisions of that treaty. By Article II of this agreement, it was established:
That all criminal cases in which both parties are British subjects, or in which the defendant is a British subject, shall be tried and determined by the British Consul alone. . . .
That all civil cases in which both parties are British subjects, or in which the defendant is a British subject, shall be heard and determined by the British Consul alone. . . .
That whenever a British subject has to complain against a Siamese he must make his complaint through the British Consul, who will lay it before the proper Siamese authorities.
That in all cases in which British or Siamese subjects are interested, the Siamese authorities in the one case, and the British Consul in the other, shall be at liberty to attend at, and listen to, the investigation of the case; and copies of the proceedings will be furnished from time to time, or when ever desired, to the Consul or the Siamese authorities, until the case is concluded.
That although the Siamese may interfere so far with British subjects as to call upon the Consul ... to punish grave offences when committed by British subjects, it is agreed that, British subjects, their persons, houses, premises, lands, ships, or property of any kind, shall not be seized, injured or in any way interfered with by the Siamese. . . .
It was, also, agreed in Article III, that in case a British subject died in Siam, his property was to go to his heirs according to English law and the
'British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 138.
•An account of his mission to Siam is given by Sir John Bowring in his The Kingdom and People of Siam. "British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 146.
consul or his appointee might take charge of it on their account. Any debts due the deceased might be collected by the consul and if the deceased should owe money such claims were to be liquidated as far as the estate of the deceased sufficed.
The Bowring treaty and the supplementary agreement furnished the model for all treaties negotiated up to 1874. While there are variations in language, there is little, if any, difference in effect. Beginning with the United States,11 there followed at short intervals, treaties with France,1* Denmark,13 the Hanseatic Republic,14 Portugal,15 The Netherlands,1' Prussia and the States of the German Customs and Commercial Union and the Grand Duchies of Mecklenburg-Schwerin and Mecklenburg-Strelitz,17 Sweden and Norway,18 Belgium,19 Italy,20 Austria-Hungary,21 and Spain.2*
Since the treaty with Spain, no other treaties of the Bowring type have been concluded by Siam, though exterritoriality was later conceded to Russia and Japan but under terms differing from those contained in the Bowring treaty. From the great number of treaties of this type and the consequent development of consular jurisdiction within so short a space of time, it might not -unnaturally have been thought that its shaking off or even its material modification would be extremely difficult and long delayed. However, the growing numbers of British Indian and Burmese subjects in the north of Siam, where a British consul was available only after a long and difficult journey to Bangkok, five hundred or more miles to the south, soon made some special arrangement for such persons necessary. The process of modifying the system established by the Bowring treaty began, therefore, much earlier than might otherwise have been expected.23
» May 29, 1856. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 46, p. 383. a August 15, 1856. Ibid., Vol. 47, p. 993.
13 May 21, 1858. Ibid., Vol. 50, p. 1073.
14 October 25, 1858. Unpublished but practically identical with the treaty with The Netherlands, infra, n. 16.
14 February 10,1859. British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 72, p. 109.
» December 17, 1860. Ibid., Vol. 58, p. 262.
17 February 7,1862. Ibid., Vol. 53, p. 741.
"May 18, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 69, p. 1135.
» August 29, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 59, p. 405.
'° October 3, 1868. Ibid., Vol. 60, pp. 773, 783.
1 May 17, 1869. Ibid., Vol. 61, p. 1308.
"February 23, 1870. Ibid., Vol. 61, p. 483.
n The treaty between France and Siam, signed at Paris, July 15, 1867, British and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 47, p. 1340, in which Siam recognized the recently acquired French protectorate over Cambodia, contains, Article V, a provision that "if Cambodian subjects commit any crime or offence on Siamese territory, they shall ... be tried and punished with justice by the Siamese Government according to the laws of Siam". This, however, can hardly be taken as the beginning of the modification of exterritoriality, as Siam had not theretofore recognized the protectorate, and Cambodians in Siam had been always subject to the jurisdiction of the Siamese law and tribunals.
1874 To The Present Time
On January 14, 1874, four years after the last treaty of the Bowring type had been entered into, there was signed at Calcutta a treaty u between Siam and the Government of India which provided for a special régime for British Indian and Burmese subjects in the three northern provinces of Chiengmai, Lakhon, and Lampoonchi. As the treaty had for one of its purposes the prevention and punishment of crime committed along the borders, chiefly dacoity, provision was made for the establishment of guard stations on Siamese territory and for a mutual surrender of fugitives. If dacoity was committed in the three Siamese provinces and the perpetrators fled into British territory, the British authorities were to use their best endeavors to apprehend them and, if Siamese, they were to be delivered to the Siamese authorities. If British, they were to be dealt with by the British authorities. A corresponding arrangement was made in cases of dacoity in British territory if the dacoits fled into Siam. However, if any persons were apprehended in the territory in which the dacoity had been committed, they were to be tried and punished by the local courts without question as to their nationality. Passports were required for Siamese going into British territory and for British subjects going into Siam from British Burma. Native Indian British subjects entering the three Siamese provinces without passports were liable to the local courts and the local law for offences committed by them on Siamese territory, but if provided with passports, they were to be dealt with according to English law by the consul at Bangkok, or by the British officer in the Yoonzaleen district in Burma, who was authorized, subject to the conditions of the treaty, to exercise all or any of the powers of a British consul under the treaty of 1855 and the supplementary agreement of 1856.
The arrangements made for the disposition of civil disputes are historically important for in them is found the germ of those international courts which figure so largely in the later British treaties of 1883 and 1909 and in the French treaty of 1907. The king of Siam agreed to appoint proper persons to be judges in the city of Chiengmai with jurisdiction to investigate and decide claims arising between British and Siamese in the three provinces above named; but in the case of claims by Siamese against British subjects holding passports, the judges were to have jurisdiction only in case such British subjects consented. Claims of Siamese against British subjects not consenting to the jurisdiction of the judges were to be investigated and decided either by the consul at Bangkok or the officer in the Yoonzaleen district in Burma. All claims by Siamese against British subjects not holding passports were to be decided by the ordinary local courts.
These limited and somewhat unsatisfactory arrangements continued for only a few years. On September 3, 1883, the treaty of 1874 was abrogated
"Brittih and Foreign State Papers, Vol. 66, p. 537.