2. In our opinion the whole of Shark's Bay, as defined by the Shark's Bay Fishery Act of 1886, would be recognised internationally as the territorial waters of Her Majesty's dominions.
3. The actual scope of the existing legislation is doubtful. "territorial limits" in sub-section (3) of section 15 of the Federal Council Act The expression of 1885 is ambiguous, but we think it better to let the matter rest where it is. unless questions are raised.
We have, &c., (Signed) RICHARD E. WEBSTER.
EDWARD CLARKE.
The Right Hon. Sir Henry Holland, Bart., M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
1
•
5540.
SIR,
No. 88.
(MAURITIUS.)
LAW OFFICERS TO COLONIAL OFFICE.
Royal Courts of Justice,
21st March 1887. We were honoured with Mr. Wingfield's letter of the 14th instant, stating that he was directed by you to transmit to us copies of two letters from Sir John Pope Hennessy, impugning the legality of the proceedings of Sir Hercules Robinson in conducting, under a Commission from the Queen, an inquiry into the affairs of the Colony of Mauritius.
That Mr. Wingfield was also to enclose copies of the following documents, viz. :-
The Commission above referred to, dated 25th September 1886.
Mauritius Ordinance No. 7 of 1886, referred to in Sir J. P. Hennessy's letters.
A despatch from Sir H. Robinson, explaining the circumstances which led him to assume the Government of Mauritius, and to leave the Island without receiving Sir J. P. Hennessy's formal defence.
A telegram from Sir H. Robinson in answer to the allegation that he had rejected witnesses who could only speak French.
the same
A memorandum by the Secretary to the Commission on subject.
That Mr. Wingfield was to request that we would favour you with our opinion on the questions raised by Sir J. P. Hennessy.
In compliance with the request contained in Mr. Wingfield's letter we have the honour to
Report
That we have considered the various points raised by Sir J. P. Hennessy, and will endeavour to deal with them seriatim.
(a.) Alleged secrecy of inquiry.
(a.) Section 4 of the Ordinance No. 7 of 1886, referred to by Sir J. P. Hennessy, does not affect this question. It relates to the obtaining the evidence of witnesses. We see nothing upon the facts to indicate that Sir Hercules Robinson has been guilty of an impropriety, in this respect, affecting the proceedings.
(b.) Rejection of French-speaking witnesses.
(b.) If the evidence of witnesses was rejected on such a ground it would
no doubt be an irregularity, but the fact is denied (see 3067).
(c.) That the rules applicable to trials were not observed.
(c.) The argument of Sir J. P. Hennessy is based upon the assumption that Sir H. Robinson was conducting a trial. This is not so; he was holding an inquiry with powers of summoning witnesses.
(d.) Absence of an interpreter.
(e.) Hearsay evidence admitted.
(f.) Irrelevant matter considered.
(d.), (e.), (f.) All those are alleged irregularities. They are to a great extent denied in fact, but if true they would not, in our opinion. invalidate the inquiry.
(9.) No cross-examination allowed.
(9.) Upon this there is a distinct statement that Sir J. P. Hennessy acquicsced in the inquiry being conducted in his absenco. He arranged for the evidence to be sent to him.
A 50069.-13. 15-3/87.
•
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.885
13 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO