R
7321
No. 28.
(MAURITIUS.)
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
חי
C.O.
Reference :-
LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.
[Proposed application to Mauritius of the provision of the Bill of Rights as to the absolut privilege attaching to Petitions addressed to the Sovereign.]
Royal Courts of Justice, MY LORD,
February 28, 1906. We were honoured by your Lordship's commands signified to us by Mr. Bertram Cox in his letter of the 16th January last, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to lay before us a despatch, No. 349, of the 15th November, 1905, from the Governor of Mauritius together with the enclosures mentioned therein, and to request the favour of our report upon the questions thereby raised with regard to the proposed application to Mauritius of the provision of the Bill of Rights as to the absolute privilege attaching to petitions addressed to the Sovereign.
That in this connection he was to refer us to the report of the 26th January, 1905,* of our predecessors in office to the effect that the Bill of Rights (I. Will. and Mary, "Sec. 2, Chap. 2), was not in force in Mauritius, that Colony having been acquired by cession and not by settlement.
That as would be seen from Enclosures I. and II. to the Governor's despatch the substance of that report was communicated to the Council of Government, and gave rise to the debate reported in Enclosure III. to the Governor's despatch.
That as a result of this debate it would appear that the elective members of the Council of Government were unanimously agreed that the provision in question of the Bill of Rights should be made applicable to the Colony, but that Mr. Newton, K.C., expressed a doubt as to whether this could be done by an Ordinance of the Colonial Legislature or even an Order of His Majesty in Council, and appeared to incline to the view that an Act of Parliament would be necessary. That the Pro- cureur-General was also of opinion that the proposal was outside the competency of local legislation."
That he was, however, to observe that provisions of Imperial Acts had in several instances (e.g., as to neutrality) been re-enacted either by Order in Council or by local legislation for Protectorates or other places to which the Imperial Acts did not apply, but to which it had been thought desirable that they should apply, and that your Lordship saw no reason legally why a similar course should not be taken in Mauritius in the present case.
That the Letters Patent of 16th September, 1885, Article 37, gave the Governor, with the advice and consent of the Council of Government, power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Colony, and that if an Ordinance were passed upon the proposed lines it would not be void for repugnancy to an Act of Parliament under Section 2 of the Colonial Laws Validity Act, 1865, because, ex hypothesi, the Bill of Rights did not "extend to the Colony," and if not void under Section 2 its validity would appear to be unquestionable, so far as repugnancy to the law of England was concerned.
That with regard to the desirability of such a law in Mauritius, he was to state that your Lordship was of opinion that the right to petition the Sovereign should be freely accorded to the people of Mauritius, and should be privileged, but that the publication of such petitions, whether in local or other newspapers or otherwise, should not be privileged, and that where malice could be established in such publica- tion the ordinary legal penalties should be operative.
That he was to request us to be good enough to take his letter into our con- sideration, and to report:-
1. Whether there would be any legal objection to a law for Mauritius on the lines indicated in paragraph 6 of his letter?
2. If not, whether that proposal should be carried into effect by an Ordinance to be passed by the Colonial Legislature, or how otherwise?
25 Wt 2645 3/06 D & S & 23999
• No. 1.
-885
16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO