་། :། ་། ། །
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
سسسسسلسا
Reference :-
C.O. 882
5
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
158
Sir Hercules Robinson sent to Downing Street shows, at page 462, that, in the year 1885, 7,980 black and coloured persons, and 59 whites were arrested under the Pass Act, and, of these, 6,769 were convicted.
25. Another of the accusations against me was that in spite of the views of Mr. Antelme and some English officials, and, it was asserted, the views also of Downing Street, I had put a stop to flogging in Mauritius. Indeed, these gentlemen had found fault with me on this subject before I reached Mauritius, for they had discovered that in Hong Kong I had repealed some flogging laws.
26. The accusation was well founded, for I had felt it necessary to repeal some flogging legislation that Sir. Hercules Robinson had introduced, and I also repealed some fogging laws that had been enforced with vigour under his administration.
64
& con-
27. In this case also my despatches were published by Her Majesty's Government. The "
Papers relating to the Flogging of Prisoners in Hong Kong, presented to "Parliament in 1879" show that corporal punishment was excessive and that "siderable proportion of the floggings had been imposed by the Superintendent of the gaol under section XI. of Ordinance No. 4, of 1863." (Parliamentary Papers, 1879. Flogging in Hong Kong, page 21). This was one of Sir Hercules Robinson's Ordinances. When I drew attention to this Ordinance, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, in his Despatch No. 134 of the 3rd October 1879, transmitted to me the opinion of Sir Richard Cross (then the Secretary for the Home Department) on the improper provision in that Ordinance by which the Superintendent of the gaol, without the sanction of a magistrate or a committee, had been enabled to inflict corporal punishment for such offences as Idleness or negligence in work," and he agreed with me that it should be at once repealed. This part of Sir Hercules Robinson's legislation, which accounted for so large a number of the floggings, was accordingly repealed by Ordinance No. 7 of 1880.
28. My despatch of the 30th of December 1886, in which I contrast the decrease of crime in Mauritius with the increase of crime in the Cape Colony, quotes Sir Hercules Robinson's last Blue Book to the effect that the corporal punishments at the Cape had reached in 1885 to the remarkable figure of 2,741. Whilst this extraordinary amount of judicial whipping was going on amongst our neighbours, not a single lash was administered in Mauritius.
29. As far as my experience of a good many Colonies enables me to judge, I think it is not at all unlikely that corporal punishment is more extensively used under Sir Hercules Robinson's Government and High Commissionership than in all the other British Colonies put together.
30. How far he can be held at all responsible for the treatment of the Native com- munity under the Pass Act or for the excessive use of corporal punishment in South Africa, I caunot venture to say, but it seems manifest that his antecedents and mine at Hong Kong rendered it undesirable that he should be the person selected to pronounce on my proceedings respecting the Pass system and corporal punishment.
31. The Parliamentary Papers to which I have referred show something more than a divergence of opinion between Sir Hercules Robinson and myself. I must frankly confess they also show a certain divergence of opinion between me and the Colonial Office. The authorities in Downing Street were in each case disposed at first to dis- courage any criticism of my predecessor's policy. They were unwilling to believe that any abuses existed. Unmistakeable hints were conveyed to me that I had better let things alone.
32. It was only when my somewhat persistent efforts attracted the real attention of the Secretary of State that the admission was made that legislative and administrative abuses, dating from the time of Sir Hercules Robinson, existed and should be remedied.
33. One of the most high-minded men that ever sat in the Executive Council of Mauritius was the late General Gordon. His recorded views entirely coincide with my policy here.
He was good enough to record his warm sympathy with my similar policy in Hong Kong. But it is notorious that the reasons that induced General Gordon to favour the Mauritian policy that I (with Lord Derby's approval) carried out induced that illustrious man to differ in South Africa on administrative questions with Sir Hercules Robinson.
34. Whatever may be the opposite ideas of Sir Hercules Robinson and myself on administrative questions in Hong Kong and elsewhere, that we have both dealt with, there were also questions of race and religion, which the promoters of the inquiry, at the suggestion, it is said, of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, had put forward as charges against me, and respecting which, unfortunately, Sir Hercules Robinson's personal views and mine were still more divergent.
159
35. But into these divergent views I am not disposed to enter. I touch upon them merely as another illustration of the inconvenience of sending him to deal with my policy in Mauritius.
The Right Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
No. 68.
I have, &o. (Signed) J. POPE HENNESSY.
SIR J. POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON. EDWARD STANHOPE, M.P. (Received March 7, 1887.)
Mauritius, January 19, 1887.
SIR,
In your despatch of last year* transmitting to me a copy of the despatch you had addressed to Sir Hercules Robinson respecting the inquiry you had ordered into the affairs of Mauritius, you said "this will give you full information as to the scope of "the inquiry."
2. Accompanying the despatch which gave me this information and stated the limits of the inquiry, was a copy of a commission dated the 25th of September 1886, appointing Sir Hercules Robinson "to inquire into and report upon the condition of "affairs in Mauritius."
3. In addition to inquiring and reporting, the commission directed Sir Hercules Robinson to submit "such recommendations upon the said matters as may appear to be
proper and expedient."
CC
4. The commission concluded by commanding the Governor to aid and assist Sir Hercules Robinson "in the execution of this our commission.'
5. But it has now become manifest that your despatch did not give me full information as to the scope of the inquiry. Concealed from me was a second commission of the same date, 25th September, which went far beyond the scope of the first.
6. The scope of the first commission was confined to inquiring, reporting, and recommending. The second, or the concealed commission, extended the scope of the Commissioner's powers to suspending, and, in effect, of officially punishing, the Clovernor who had been commanded to assist the Commissioner.
7. In your despatch of the 29th September which assured me that the instructions enclosed would give me full information as to the scope of the inquiry, you also said :-
CE
I have indeed not attempted to form any conclusion, believing that this cannot be done satisfactorily without personal investigations in Mauritius.' Four days, however, before you gave me that distinct assurance, a concealed commission which bore this rather ominous title was secretly printed in Downing Street :-" Commission appointing "Sir Hercules Robinson to be Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of "Mauritius.'
11
8. I say nothing of other assurances I received to the effect that my position was thoroughly safeguarded, as Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly await the report of Sir Hercules Robinson; but, looking simply to your public despatch of the 29th September last,* I have perhaps some reasons to complain that although you had secretly issued the second commission of the 25th September, you nevertheless assured me on the 29th of September that you had not attempted to form any conclusions on the
case.
9. But the personal treatment by Her Majesty's Government of a distant official is a trifling matter compared to the general question involved in the course adopted of sending one Governor to sit in judgment and pass sentence on another Governor whilst the latter was still engaged in conducting his government.
10. Twenty years experience as a Colonial Governor, preceded by some years work in an assembly where public business is discussed, entitles me perhaps to say a few words on this general question.
11. There is no precedent for the course adopted. Heretofore when complaints were made, whether by a majority or by a minority in a Colony, the Secretary of State invited the Governor to furnish his explanations, and having received and considered them, he recalled the Governor if he thought such a step necessary and justifiable, and the despatches on the subject were laid before Parliament.
• No. 28.
U 4Page 121
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
།?། ། ། ། །
Reference :--
C.O. 882
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
158
Sir Hercules Robinson sent to Downing Street shows, at page 462, that, in the year 1885, 7,980 black and coloured persons, and 59 whites were arrested under the Pass Act, and, of these, 6,769 were convicted.
25. Another of the accusations against me was that in spite of the views of Mr. Antelme and some English officials, and, it was asserted, the views also of Downing Street, I had put a stop to flogging in Mauritius. Indeed, these gentlemen had found fault with me on this subject before I reached Mauritius, for they had discovered that in Hong Kong I had repealed some flogging laws.
26. The accusation was well founded, for I had felt it necessary to repeal some flogging legislation that Sir Hercules Robinson had introduced, and I also repealed Bome flogging laws that had been enforced with vigour under his administration.
**
27. In this case also my despatches were published by Her Majesty's Government. The "Papers relating to the Flogging of Prisoners in Hong Kong, presented to Parliament in 1879" show that corporal punishment was excessive and that "a con- siderable proportion of the floggings had been imposed by the Superintendent of the gaol under section XI. of Ordinance No. 4, of 1863." (Parliamentary Papers, 1879. Flogging in Hong Kong, page 21). This was one of Sir Hercules Robinson's Ordinances. When I drew attention to this Ordinance, Sir Michael Hicks Beach, in his Despatch No. 134 of the 3rd October 1879, transmitted to me the opinion of Sir Richard Cross (then the Secretary for the Home Department) on the improper provision in that Ordinance by which the Superintendent of the gaol, without the sanction of a magistrate or a committee, had been enabled to inflict corporal punishment for such offences as "Idleness or negligence in work," and he agreed with me that it should be at once repealed. This part of Sir Hercules Robinson's legislation, which accounted for so large a number of the floggings, was accordingly repealed by Ordinance No. 7 of 1880.
28. My despatch of the 30th of December 1886, in which I contrast the decrease of crime in Mauritius with the increase of crime in the Cape Colony, quotes Sir Hercules Robinson's last Blue Book to the effect that the corporal punishments at the Cape had reached in 1885 to the remarkable figure of 2,741. Whilst this extraordinary amount of judicial whipping was going on amongst our neighbours, not a single lash was administered in Mauritius.
29. As far as my experience of a good many Colonies enables me to judge, I think it is not at all unlikely that corporal punishment is more extensively used under Sir Hercules Robinson's Government and High Commissionership than in all the other British Colonies put together.
30. How far he can be held at all responsible for the treatment of the Native com- munity under the Pass Act or for the excessive use of corporal punishment in South Africa, I cannot venture to say, but it seems manifest that his antecedents and mine at Hong Kong rendered it undesirable that he should be the person selected to pronounce on my proceedings respecting the Pass system and corporal punishment.
31. The Parliamentary Papers to which I have referred show something more than a divergence of opinion between Sir Hercules Robinson and myself. I must frankly confess they also show a certain divergence of opinion between me and the Colonial Office. The authorities in Downing Street were in each case disposed at first to dis- courage any criticism of my predecessor's policy. They were unwilling to believe that any abuses existed. Unmistakeable hints were conveyed to me that I had better let things alone.
32. It was only when my somewhat persistent efforts attracted the real attention of the Secretary of State that the admission was made that legislative and administrative. abuses, dating from the tiine of Sir Hercules Robinson, existed and should be remedied.
33. One of the most high-minded men that ever sat in the Executive Council of Mauritius was the late General Gordon. His recorded views entirely coincide with my policy here. He was good enough to record his warm sympathy with my similar policy in Hong Kong. But it is notorious that the reasons that induced General Gordon to favour the Mauritian policy that I (with Lord Derby's approval) carried out induced that illustrious man to differ in South Africa on administrative questions with Sir IIercules Robinson.
34. Whatever may be the opposite ideas of Sir Hercules Robinson and myself on administrative questions in Hong Kong and elsewhere, that we have both dealt with, there were also questions of race and religion, which the promoters of the inquiry, at the suggestion, it is said, of Mr. Clifford Lloyd, had put forward as charges against me, and respecting which, unfortunately, Sir Hercules Robinson's personal views and mine were still more divergent.
159
35. But into these divergent views I am not disposed to enter. I touch upon them merely as another illustration of the inconvenience of sending him to deal with my policy in Mauritius.
The Right Hon. Edward Stanhope, M.P.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
No. 68.
I have, &c. (Signed) J. POPE HENNESSY.
SIR J. POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON. EDWARD STANHOPE, M.P. (Received March 7, 1887.)
Mauritius, January 19, 1887.
SIR,
In your despatch of last year* transmitting to me a copy of the despatch you had addressed to Sir Hercules Robinson respecting the inquiry you had ordered into the affairs of Mauritius, you said "this will give you full information as to the scope of "the inquiry."
2. Accompanying the despatch which gave me this information and stated the limits of the inquiry, was a copy of a commission dated the 25th of September 1886, appointing Sir Hercules Robinson "to inquire into and report upon the condition of "affairs in Mauritius."
3. In addition to inquiring and reporting, the commission directed Sir Hercules Robinson to submit "such recommendations upon the said matters as may appear to be
proper and expedient."
4. The commission concluded by commanding the Governor to aid and assist Sir Hercules Robinson "in the execution of this our commission."
5. But it has now become manifest that your despatch did not give me full information
as to the scope of the inquiry. Concealed from me was a second commission of the same date, 25th September, which went far beyond the scope of the first.
6. The scope of the first commission was confined to inquiring, reporting, and recommending. The second, or the concealed commission, extended the scope of the Commissioner's powers to suspending, and, in effect, of officially punishing, the Governor who had been commanded to assist the Commissioner.
7. In your despatch of the 29th September which assured me that the instructions enclosed would give me full information as to the scope of the inquiry, you also said :- "I have indeed not attempted to form any conclusion, believing that this cannot be done "satisfactorily without personal investigations in Mauritius." Four days, however, before you gave me that distinct assurance, a concealed commission which bore this rather ominous title was secretly printed in Downing Street:-"Commission appointing Sir Hercules Robinson to be Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the Colony of "Mauritiue."
ES
8. I say nothing of other assurances I received to the effect that my position was thoroughly safeguarded, as Her Majesty's Government would undoubtedly await the report of Sir Hercules Robinson; but, looking simply to your public despatch of the 29th September last,* I have perhaps some reasons to complain that although you had secretly issued the second commission of the 25th September, you nevertheless assured me on the 29th of September that you had not attempted to form any conclusions on the
case.
9. But the personal treatment by Her Majesty's Government of a distant official is a trifling matter compared to the general question involved in the course adopted of sending one Governor to sit in judgment and pass sentence on another Governor whilst the latter was still engaged in conducting his government.
10. Twenty years experience as a Colonial Governor, preceded by some years work in an assembly where public business is discussed, entitles me perhaps to say few words on this general question.
11. There is no precedent for the course adopted. Heretofore when complaints were made, whether by a majority or by a minority in a Colony, the Secretary of State invited the Governor to furnish his explanations, and having received and considered them, he recalled the Governor if he thought such a step necessary and justifiable, and the despatches on the subject were laid before Parliament.