CO885-(11-13) — Page 436

3199.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

CO.

Reference :-

• 885

12 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

jury either to corroborate or to contradict the evidence of the burial of the body at a place which was alleged to be known, and where, was accurate, the remains would in the ordinary course, we do not say necessarily, the story told by the children have been found.

We think one unfortunate result of that course was that the evidence of the children was not sufficiently tested at the trial.

We observe the explanation given by the Attorney-General that two skeletons had been found, and that with neither of them was found

any clothes.

We entertain no doubt that the withholding the evidence in question is attributable to a desire that justice should be done, and that the prisoners might not themselves be prejudiced, inasmuch as we observe that in one of the statements it is alleged that Godden had previously murdered another man.

We think, however, that it would have been better that the whole of the facts should have been before the jury.

It would doubtless have been competent to counsel for the prisoner to argue that the remains found in the condition in which they were found was not a corroboration of, but to some extent a contradiction of, the evidence of the boy of 16. We think, however, it was one of the facts which should have been proved, and that the prisoners were entitled to the benefit of that commentary. We do not, however, mean to imply that the absence of that evidence ought to affect the result. Even assuming that neither of the skeletons found are the remains of the murdered sailor, it would by no means follow that the body had been allowed to remain in its first resting-place; and with respect to the absence of the clothes we do not understand the witness as describing the burial of a clothed body. His language is, “When the body was taken away to be buried I saw the clothes on," and the post of observation he had when the actual burial took place does not appear to have been such as would have enabled him to see whether the body at the time of actual burial was clothed or not. His language is, "Godden and Coffey carried the body, and my mother went with them with a lamp. I watched them until I saw the lamp stop at the trench."

If that question, that is to say, the question of whether the body was buried naked or with clothing upon it, had been raised at the trial, doubtless more attention would have been paid to the question of whether the witness could see whether the body was clothed or not.

The facts, however, such as they were put in proof, seem to have satisfied the jury, notwithstanding the caution given to them by the Chief Justice; a caution which we think was somewhat in excess of what the facts proved demanded.

We therefore see no reason to question the propriety of the verdict or the sentence, and this observation we mean to apply to all the prisoners.

The Right Hon.

Sir Michael Hicks Beach, Bart.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

We have, &c.,

(Signed)

JOHN HOLKER. HARDINGE 8. GIFFARD.

No. 190.

(LABUAN.)

LAW OFFICERS to FOREIGN OFFICE.

between Spai

MY LORD,

WE are honoured with your Lordship's commands signified in Sir Julian Paunce- New Treaty

Temple, 3rd February 1879. fote's letter of the 14th ultimo, stating that he was directed by your Lordship to and Sutu. transmit to us documents with reference to a new Treaty concluded between Spain and the Sultan of Sulu, which raised the following important question :

reignty over the

That we were aware that the claim of Spain to sovereignty over the Sulu Archi- Spanish suve pelago had been for many years the subject of grave discussions between the British Archipelago. and Spanish Governments. Owing to the united action of Great Britain and Germany Protocol between the practical exercise of such sovereignty on the part of Spain had hitherto been Germany, and successfully opposed, and a modus vivendi was ultimately arrived at between the three Powers, which was embodied in the Protocol of the 11th March 1877 (document No. 2).

That, in the Foreign Office Memorandum of the 10th December 1878* (document No. 6), we should find an account of the negotiations which resulted in the signing of that Protocol, with references to the most important despatches bearing thereon, and for more detailed information on the subject Sir Julian Pauncefote was to refer us to the printed Sulu correspondence (document No. 1).

4

That we should observe that the first condition of the negotiations insisted on by Her Majesty's Government was that Spanish sovereignty over any part of the Sulu Archipelago."

the Protocol should contain no recognition of That the Protocol was signed on the 11th March 1877, and that, notwithstanding the settlement then arrived at, rumours reached Her Majesty's Government in the course of last year (1878) that the Governor of the Philippines had compelled the Sultan of Sulu to sign a new Treaty recognising the sovereignty of Spain over all the Archipelago of Sulu and her dependencies.

That Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid was instructed to ask the Spanish Govern- ment for a copy of that Treaty, and a copy was furnished to Mr. West in strict confidence by the Spanish Foreign Secretary, with assurances of the care which had been taken to avoid anything which would conflict with the Protocol of the 11th March 1877 (document No. 9).

That in October 1878 the Treaty was officially communicated to Her Majesty's Government (document No. 10). A printed copy of it would be found in Annex II. of the Foreign Office Memorandum of the 5th October 1878 (document No. 4), and it would be seen that it declared the sovereignty of Spain "to be unquestionable over all the Archipelago of Sulu and her dependencies."

That the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government, on the signing of the previous Spanish Treaty of 1851, opposed the recognition of Spanish sovereignty by the Sultan of Sulu, or the cession of any of his territory to Spain, was stated in the case laid before the Law Officers of the Crown on the 3rd March 1874, and in their Report thereon of the 26th May following (Sulu. Correspondence, Part I., p. 37, document No. 1).

That Her Majesty's Government relied on Article VII. of the Treaty between Great Britain and Sulu of the 29th May 1849, the text of which, as well as that of the Spanish Treaty of 1851, we would find in the Annexes to the Foreign Office Memoranda of the 5th July 1873 and the 18th February 1874 (document No. 3), as well as in the Sulu Correspondence, Part I., pp. 12 and 34 (document No. 1).

That, with reference to the objection taken to the non-ratification of the British Treaty of 1849, Sir Julian Pauncefote was to refer us to the Foreign Office Memorandum of the 21st December 1878 (document No. 7).

Great Britain, Bp in.

That the differences with Spain in regard to Sulu had hitherto been confined to Spanish chair the Sulu Archipelago. But that a further complication had arisen by reason of the of Bo

territory on co

A 12916-304. 25.—12/84.

• Confidential Paper No. 4035,