PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
CO
C.O. 882
5
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC. COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
170
No. 83.
ADMINISTRATOR MAJOR-GENERAL W. H. HAWLEY to the RIGHT HON. Sir H. T. HOLLAND, Bart., G.C.M.G., M.P. (Received April 4, 1887.)
(No. 122.) SIB,
Government House, Mauritius, March 10, 1887.
I HAVE the honour to inform you, with reference to your despatch of the 27th January, that inasmuch as the Council of Government is not now sitting, I have been unable to submit a vote for the purpose of granting to Sir John Pope Hennessy the half salary of Governor from the date of his suspension until a final decision shall be taken upon his case.
2. I have, however, instructed the Receiver General to pay to Sir John Pope Hennessy half salary from the date of suspension, viz., the 14th of December last to the day of his embarkation, as reported to you in my confidential despatch of the 1st iustant.+
I have, &c. (Signed) W. H. HAWLEY,
Major-General.
The Right Hon. Sir H. T. Holland, Bart., G.C.MG.,
&c.
SIR,
&c.
&c.
No. 84.
COLONIAL OFFICE to SIR J. POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G.
Downing Street, April 7, 1887.
I AM directed by Secretary Sir H. Holland to transmit to you a copy of the report of Sir H. Robinson on the inquiry held by him as Royal Commissioner into the affairs of Mauritius, and to inform you that a further communication will be addressed to you as to the points in regard to which Her Majesty's Government more particularly desire your explanations,
2. With reference to your letters of the 29th of December and 17th of January§ I am to enclose for your information copy of a despatch || to the Officer Administering the Government of Mauritius relative to the legality of your suspension.
3. Sir H. Robinson has been informed that the Secretary of State is satisfied that your case will be in no way prejudiced by the step taken by him in suspending you from the administration of the Government.
4. I am also to forward, for your information, copies of two telegrams ¶ from Mr. Clifford Lloyd as requested in your letter of 27th December last.
I ain, &c.
Sir J. P. Hennessy.
(Signed)
No. 85.
EDWARD WINGFIELD.
The RIGHT IION. SIR HERCULES ROBINSON, G.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON. Stu H. T. HOLLAND, BART., G.C.M.G., M.P. (Received April 9, 1887.)
Government House, Cape Town, March 14, 1887.
SIR,
I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 15th February,** transmitting, for any observations I might wish to offer, copy of a letter from Sir John Pope Hennessy relative to the inquiry held by me into the affairs of Mauritius, and my alleged refusal to hear witnesses who could not speak English,
2. As I have already, in my telegram of the 15th February, and in my despatches of the 19th February and 22nd February,ft explained fully the course adopted with reference to the few persons who came forward and volunteered testimony, some in favour of Sir John Pope Hennessy and some against him, but who were unable to express themselves fluently in English, I need not go over the same ground again; I will
↑ Not printed.
‡ No. 48. Noe. 14; one not printed.
• No. 47.
| No. 64.
* No. 61.
Nos. 52 and 58. No. 62, 74, and 76.
171
•
merely repeat that all were treated alike. Their written statements, some in French and some in English, were received and duly considered. They were all trans nitted to you, as a supplementary appendix to my report, in my Despatch of the 22nd February
last.*
3. If any of these writtten statements had been deemed by me material, the persons making them would have been summoned and sworn, and their evidence taken through an interpreter. But a perusal of these statements of opinion and not of fact will, I think, show that such a course would have been a mere waste of time. They could add nothing material to the evidence given by the 80 witnesses who had been examined, and who happened to be equally divided for and against Sir John Pope Hennessy.
4. The Mauritius Ordinance, No. 7 of 1886, referred to by Sir John Pope Hennessy was passed to compel the attendance of persons summoned by the Royal Commissioner to enable witnesses to be sworn, and to impose a penalty for giving false evidence. Clause 4 enacts that "the law of Mauritius relating to witnesses and evidence "shall be applicable to all witnesses appearing and to all evidence taken before the "Commissioner."
5. But it must be obvious that the law of Mauritius relating to witnesses and evidence was not applicable to those who did not give evidence, and who did not appear as witnesses before the Commissioner. The Ordinance did not make it obligatory on the Commissioner to examine on oath all persons volunteering to give evidence. It was within his discretion to abstain from suminoning persons whose evidence in his opinion was not material. Sir John Pope Hennessy's contention, therefore, as to the illegality of the course adopted by me as regards the few persons volunteering to give evidence who were unable to express themselves with facility in English appears to me to be untenable.
•
6. Sir John Pope Hennessy observes: "The inquiry of 1874 was in public. The "inquiry of 1886 was a secret inquiry * The inquiry of 1896 is the first occasion on which an inquiry upon oath relating to the public affairs of the Colony has "been held in secret."
16
7. The question as to whether the inquiry should be in public or in private received froin me, when I was first asked to undertake the duty, careful consideration. I consulted also the best legal and constitutional authorities here on the subject. There was not, so far as I could ascertain, either in Mauritius or any other Colony, any analogous case to refer to. In this case the Governor was in effect being placed on his trial in the Colony whilst still in the administration of the Government. The object of the inquiry was to enable me, after "personal examination on the spot," to submit my "conclusions and recommendation on certain specified subjects to Her Majesty's Government. A public inquiry would not have been any greater aid to me in forming my own judgment than a private inquiry; whilst the former would have given rise to much needless scandal, and to the very unseemly spectacle of the Governor and his subordinates impleading one another in a court open to the public and the press. It seemed to me that such a course would have increased the acrimonious excitement already existing in' the Colony in reference to these unhappy official squabbles, and that, although a public inquiry would probably have heen pleasing to the seven daily morning papers in Port Louis, it would not have been advantageous to the public service.
8. I considered, and was advised, that the best precedent to follow was the rules of a Parliamentary Select Committee when inquiring into the conduct of a high official, such, for example, as that which sat here some years ago to inquire into the conduct of a Judge of the Supreme Court. The accused was allowed to be present, and to cross. examine the witnesses; but the public and press were alike excluded, and it was left to the House of Assembly to determine, upon receiving the report of the Select Com- mittee, and the evidence, whether they should be made public, and also what further steps, if any, should be taken in the matter.
9. I determined to follow this precedent as far as practicable, substituting the Secretary of State for the House of Assembly; and I so informed Sir John Pope Hennessy upon the occasion of my first interview with him. I was certainly then under the impression that he entirely concurred in my view, and at all events neither he nor any of his friends ever at any time asked that the inquiry should be in public.
10. Sir John Pope Hennessy complains that much hearsay evidonce was given, and matter not relevant to the charges allowed to appear on the minutes. As Sir John Pope Hennessy gives no specific examples in support of these complaints, I can only say that the evidence has gone home and will speak for itself. It did not appear to
• No. 76. Y 2