CO885(2-3) — Page 144

42

attention to the provisions of the British Customs Acts, particularly 24 Geo. III, cap. 47, secs. 17, 18, and 19, which appeared to bear on the point.

That should we be of opinion that the Ordinance could not be confirmed, we would oblige Sir George Grey by stating our reason for that conclusion, and the amendment which we might think required for the guidance of the Governor of British Guiana.

In obedience to Mr. Merivale's request, we have taken the Ordinance into our consideration, and have the honour to report-

That we are of opinion that the clauses 66 and 67 of this Ordinance cannot properly be confirmed.

We conceive that the Colonial Legislature cannot legally exercise its juris- diction beyond its territorial limits (three miles from the shore), or at the utmost can only do this over persons domiciled in the Colony, who may offend against its Ordinances even beyond those limits, but not over other persons, which this Ordinance assumes to do in the clauses in question; and we accordingly recom- mend the omission of these clauses from the Ordinance.

We have, &c. (Signed) J. D. HARDING.

&c.

The Right Hon. Sidney Herbert, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

A. E. COCKBURN, RICHARD BETHELL.

43

In obedience to your Lordship's commands, we have carefully considered the various documents submitted to us, and have the honour to report that, in our opinion there is a legal objection to Her Majesty's confirming the aforesaid Ordinance, or Article 61 of the Draft Penal Code, if it were submitted to Her Majesty in the shape of an Ordinance; and that, in our opinion, there is an objection arising out of the general policy of the law, which would render it unadvisable to confirm either of them; but, in our opinion, the provisions in question should be so modified as to prohibit the Judge in the Mauritius from trying any persons charged with the offences specified in Article 61, committed without the limits of the Mauritius or any of its dependencies, but enabling the Judge of the Court of Appeal to enquire into the case, and, if he shall think fit, to commit the party charged to prision, there to remain until he can be sent to that part of Her Majesty's dominions in which he is charged with having committed such offence or such other part of Her Majesty's dominions as the Judge of the Court of Appeal shall think fit, in the manner provided by the latter part of Article 61.

We have, &c.

(Signed)

The Right Hon. Earl Grey,

&c.

&c.

&c.

JOHN ROMILLY. A. E. COCKBURN.

Mauritius.

No. 38.

Colonial Ordinance, where illegal, on account of extend-

ing some of its

provisions beyond

the local jurisdic

tion.

• Vide Appendix No. 2

No. 38.

COPY of a LETTER from the ATTORNEY and Solicitor-GENERAL to

My Lord,

Earl GREY.

Lincoln's Inn, December 30, 1850.

WE were honoured with your Lordship's commands, contained in Mr. Hawes's letter of the 2nd of December instant, in which he stated that he was directed by your Lordship to transmit to us the copy of an Ordinance passed by the Legislature of Mauritius, and sent here for Her Majesty's con- firmation, and to request that we would furnish your Lordship with our opinion and advice on the following subject:-

That it would be seen that Article 2 of this Ordinance was framed in conformity with the Imperial Statute, 9 Geo. IV, cap. 31, sec. 7.

That this Article must be read in conjunction with Article 61 of the draft of a Penal Code (annexed thereto) which was under consideration in Mauritius, and portions of which only had then been reduced into the forms of Ordinances, Article 61 not being one of those portions.

That it had occurred to your Lordship that it might be questionable, on general principles of British jurisprudence, whether powers of this description (which appeared to leave it at the discretion of the Judge whether any British subjects charged with the commission of the offences specified in any part of the world, should or should not be tried in Mauritius) could be properly entrusted to the Courts of a Colony.

Mr. Hawes concluded by stating that he was directed, therefore, to request that we would inform your Lordship whether there is, in our opinion, any legal objection to Her Majesty's confirming the aforesaid Ordinance, or Article 61 of the Draft Penal Code, if it were submitted to Her in the shape of an Ordinance, or whether there is any objection, arising out of the general policy of the law, which would render it unadvisable to confirm them, or either of them, and if so, in what manner the provisions in question should be modified to obviate such objection.

ornaľo da semanak je. Sega j

ง

M

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference →→

TELEC.O.885

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO