CO885-(15-16) — Page 369

2633

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

C.O.8

Reference :-

.885

SIR,

No. 1.

(MAURITIUS.)

LAW OFFICERS to COLONIAL OFFICE.

[Question whether the Bill of Rights is in force in Mauritius.] Royal Courts of Justice,

January 26, 1905. We were honoured with your commands signified to us in Mr. H. Bertram Cox's letter of the 22nd December last, stating that he was directed by you to lay before us a despatch dated the 31st of October, from the Governor of Mauritius, together with a copy of a debate which recently took place in the Council of Govern- ment, and a Case which was consequently prepared by the Acting Procureur-General with reference to the application to Mauritius of the provision of the Bill of Rights relating to the right of the subject to petition the Sovereign.

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to say that you did not think it necessary to trouble us with reference to the second question submitted in the Case, which appeared to be of a political rather than a legal character, but that he was to ask us to be good enough to take the papers into our consideration, and to report upon the first question submitted in the "Case," vizt., "Whether the provision of the Bill of Rights, which confers an absolute privilege on Petitions to the Sovereign, extends to Mauritius."

That Mr. Bertram Cox was to add that you would be glad to be favoured with any general observations which we might be pleased to make as to the application of the Bill of Rights generally, and that he was to refer us to the observations of the Acting Procureur-General on this subject on page 7 of the debate above referred to.

We have taken the papers into our consideration, and, in obedience to your commands, have the honour to

Report-

That in our opinion the Bill of Rights (1 William and Mary Session 2 Chapter 2) is not in force in Mauritius; that Colony was acquired by cession and not by settle-

ment.

It is not necessary to express any opinion as to the assumption made in the question that the Bill of Rights confers an absolute privilege on Petitions to the in respect of malicious libels upon individuals contained therein. The infor mation in the Seven Bishops Case (12 State Trials, p. 183, Edition 1812, by Howell), was for a seditious libel, and it was this case which gave rise to the enactment (see the preamble).

The Law Officers in 1825 apparently thought the privilege absolute in all cases (Forsyth's Cases on Constitutional Law, p.p. 454-5), but we do not think that we ought to express any opinion on a point of such great importance which does not arise in the present case, as the Bill of Rights does not apply in Mauritius.

We have, &c.,

R. B. FINLAY. EDWARD CARSON.

The Right Honourable Alfred Lyttelton, M.P.,

&c.,

&c.,

&c.

25

Wt 16 206 Dk 5 5

20997

16 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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