PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :--
TTTTICO-882
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
218.
(P.)
RETURN of Sanitary Contraventions taken by the Police from 1st January, 1868, to
31st July, 1872.
Port Les
Pharpie muminat
District
Kemer de Humpert.
Flang
Plastics Wuzhou
عامل
Grand Port
SATURNE Bach mar
Total
**
1800.
1000.
1,0641,306
སྐqu|8བྷ་ཡཿཐཱ-
Fax Condered.
Foteli Takon
1870,
1877.
1872.
zuki -8256 | Passioned
91
704
$48 136
73 188 HO
Dismissed.
In Port Loin the your 1871, 50 warrants, in virtue of Article 11 of Ordinaxon 4 of 1869, unested, all the pessions found cloen.
{In the year 1878, © Warrants,
• In 1800, 3 uses not found.
· 1871, 1
1973, 4
General Police Office, August 29, 1872.
(Q.)
and 1 ouse untried.
Mawrks.
I untried.
Extract from Standing Orders of the Mauritius Police Force, compiled by Colonel Anson, dated January 9, 1863.
CONFESSIONA
61-1. No Inspector, non-commissioned officer, or constable is on any account to suffer any statement in the nature of a confession to be extracted from a person charged with felony, either by any member of the police or any other person.
2. While it is the duty of the police to receive from accused persons all statements which they may make spontaneously, and while it is not improper to ask incidentally a few questions, with a view to obtaining the prisoner's explanations, it is quite irregular in any police officer to interrogate a prisoner closely, to subject him to a cross-examin- tion, to confront him with the intended witnesses in the case, or to call on him to explain diversities between his statements and theirs, or to inform a prisoner that he has already implicated himself fatally or even seriously, as any such course must tend to place him unfairly at a disadvantage as to any statements he may make with the con- viction that the charge is already established against him.
Sir,
Inclosure 2 in No. 55.
Line Barracks, September 14, 1872. IN reply to your letters calling for any explanations I may wish to offer on the paragraphs mentioned therein, viz., 5, 8, 82, 40, 45, and 50, I have the honour to state, for the information of his Excellency the Governor, that the inferences which cannot fail to be drawn from the statements therein contained are, so far as I am concerned, most unfounded.
In paragraph & it is stated that "though in the possession of the Commissioners, it would appear that a file of other General Orders, which was handed to one of the members was not submitted to all the others; and the file itself when returned to my office, was found minus a page (81) on which one of the principal instructions as to the modus agendi of the police
was laid down.” Paragraph 8 states "that only such orders
18
能
as could lead to such an inference and tell against the Department were made known to the Commission." Paragraph 32 refers to General Order No. 21 of 8th March, 1871, 'one of those on the file kept back." In paragraph 40 I am charged with misleading the Commission by only producing such orders as were published in the Report," and of not supporting an "absent Chief and the good fame of the Depart ment" to my own credit. Again, at paragraph 44, with "the publication of part of your orders, the suppression of others;" and in paragraph 50 I am stated to have with- held General Order No. 28 of 1870.
The file of General Orders alluded to was on the table of the Commission, and remained there during the whole of its sittings, after having been produced. When
219
the sittings for taking evidence were concluded, I, as head of the Police, took them away. This file of General Orders was a collection that the Superintendent had made of all orders referring to Ordinance 31 of 1867 for his own personal convenience. It was not an official document belonging to the office. Copies of all General Orders are sent to each station in the island to the Superintendent's office, the Adjutant's office, the Sergeant-Major's office, ale when asked for, to the Inspector-General's office, and monthly to the Colonial Secretary.
The General Order No. 28 of 1870, to which you especially allude, was read by me to the Honourable Mr. Beyts when that gentleman was under examination on the 25th January, 1872, Q. 2035. It is incorrectly entered in the text of the evidence as No. 60 of 1870, but that Order has nothing whatever to do with the question I put on Mr. Beyts' annual Report, paragraph 50, Article 5, for it refers to immigrants in Government employ having a pass endorsed by the officer of their department, whereas General Order 28 of 1870 relates to immigrants not under engagement, and having all their papers en règle, being out of their districts for a day or two, and able to give a satisfactory account of themselves, on business, &c. General Order No. 22 of 1871 runs thus:-"The attention of Inspectors is called to General Orders Nos. 28 and 63 of 1870. When an Indian is found out of his district with his pass en règle, with photo- graphs, numbers, &c., all correct, and able to give a satisfactory account of himself, he should not be arrested merely because he may have left his district." These two Orders were read by me to the Honourable Mr. Beyts, and he was asked whether they did not carry out his wish and intention as expressed in his annual Report, paragraph 50, Article 5. Had General Order 60 of 1870 been one of the Orders read, it would not have borne on the subject, nor could the question put have received the answer recorded as given. The page (31) of the file of General Orders was taken out by me after the Commission had concluded its sittings for taking evidence, and was attached to my annual Report on the working and statistics of the police, which I submitted to his Excellency on the 12th February, 1872, the Commission having concluded its sittings for taking evidence on the 5th Febraury, 1872. In that Report I thus allude to these two General Orders Nos. 8 and 28 of 1870, when speaking of the decrease in the number of vagrants at paragraph 23:-"2ndly, from the less stringent interpretation latterly given to the law, and from orders that have been issued to the police, the Indians are not so liable to arrest. I will quote two or three of these orders, from which it will be seen that some of the most marked of the Honourable the Protector's suggestions in Paragraph 50, Articles 5 and 6 in his Report last year have been anticf- pated, and that such was and is the practice in the force. General Orders Nos. 8 and 28 of 1870, marked A and B."
ment."
By this marked reference to these, it appears to me that I took the strongest measures in my power to "support my absent Chief and the good fame of the Depart- This Report was laid before Council on the 20th February, 1872, and was printed, commented on, and before the public months before the Report of the Police Commission was completed. Had I wished to "misled" others by withholding them, I should hardly have put them into a public
suppress
these Orders or to have Report. The "much better spirit now prevailing in the force," could hardly be supposed to allude to the time I had been in charge, as M. de Plévitz alludes to the fact at the postscript of the petition, vide XVII of the. Report, that is, before my appointment.
I cannot but regret that although I have for six weeks been in daily communica- tion with you on matters of duty, yet you have not once alluded to the file of Orders or missing page. Had you done so, I would have at once given you the above explanation.
In conclusion I have the honour to request that you will be good enough to with draw the accusations and insinuations concerning me that are contained in the above paragraphs of your letter to the Royal Commissioners.
The Hon. the Colonial Secretary,
&c. &c.
Sir,
&c.
I have, &c. (Signed) F. T. BLUNT,
Inclosure 8 in No. 55.
Acting Inspector of Immigrants.
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of 10th instant, and I
Chambers, September 12, 1872. beg you will convey my thanks to his Excellency the Governor for transmitting me a