>
7776.
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 885
No. 476. (MAURITIUS.)
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
MY LORD DUKE,
Temple, August 12, 1867. We were honoured with your Grace's commands, signified in Sir Frederic Rogers' letter of the 6th July ultimo, in which he stated that he was directed by your Grace to state that a question had arisen in Mauritius whether the Procureur General and his substitute "can exercise the privilege of private practice," and that we were aware that in Mauritius the French Code de Procédure Civil is in force, except so far as any part of it had been expressly or impliedly abrogated.
That by the 86th section of that Code Procureurs Généraux, Avocats Generaux, Pro- cureurs du Roi, and their substitutes are forbidden to plead for private individuals (except in certain specified cases), even before tribunals other than those in which they
exercise their functions.
That it appears that the reason for this prohibition was, that in France the Pro- cureur General formed part of the court. In civil cases he has to attend the sittings, and after the termination of the arguments he gives his "conclusions" to the judges he is a kind of semi-judicial functionary attached to the court, and he is never counsel for the Crown or for any department of the Government. But that in Mauritius, even before the changes afterwards pointed out, the Procureur General was the legal adviser of the Crown and the counsel before the civil courts, and again, even while the courts were on the French model, that is to say, a court of first instance and a court of appeal, the substitute of the Procureur General regularly exercised the right of private practice.
Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased to say that he was desired, for our convenience, to call our attention to a few facts and documents before stating the circumstances under which the present question had arisen.
That in 1831, by an Order in Council, dated 13th April, the Procureur General and his substitutes "in our civil cases were relieved from the duty of making their
"
** conclusions for the assistance of the courts, and that a copy of that Order in Council was annexed for reference; that-
64
A Mr. Jeremie was, in December 1831, appointed Procureur General and Advocate General (those offices of the Ministére public being then for the first time consolidated), and in a Despatch of 20th December 1831, announcing his appointment, Lord Goderich recited the terms of the above-mentioned Order in Council, and said, "It is now unne- cessary to subject Mr. Jeremie to any restriction which should prevent his following "his profession as an advocate on his own account in civil causes." That great remon- strance was made in the Colony against the consolidation of the offices of Procureur General and Advocate General, on the ground of the incompatibility of the duties appertaining to those offices, but it does not appear that any remonstrance was then made against the privilege granted of private practice.
*
That by an Order in Council of the 6th November 1832 the Procureur General was relieved from the performance of any duties as Advocate General which were incom- patible with his duties as Procureur General, and to "that extent the office and duties of the Ministére public were abolished. A copy of that order was annexed for reference.
C
1
That in 1851 the constitution of the courts was entirely remodelled by an Order in Council, dated the 23rd October 1851, confirming a local Ordinance of the 20th March 1850, a copy of which Order was also annexed for reference; and
Sir Frederic Rogers was pleased to say that it would be seen that by Article 12 the office and functions of the Ministére public" were abolished so far as the atten. dance of the Procureur General or his substitute at the sitting of the Supreme Court was by the existing law required, on pain of nullity, except in certain cases therein specified.
That it seemed that Mr. Jeremie did not hold his office long, and that he did not exercise the right of private practice, and that Mr. D'Epinay, who succeeded him, only once engaged in private practice, though it does not appear that he ever doubted his right; that
16278.-553.
25.-5/86.
11 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2