305
}
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
π | | | | | | | | | | |
Reference :-
C.O.882/11
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
4.
20
I enclose a memorandum from the Procureur General on the subject of the popular support which may be considered as attaching to the reforms advocated by Mr. Pezzani.
5. It is, I consider, manifest that the majority of the Unofficial Members is opposed to any considerable amendment of the Constitution. Even the limited extension of their powers advocated in 1925 by Mr. Nairac and adopted by the Council had not, as Mr. Nairac now states, a strong body of public opinion behind it. 6. The supporters of Mr. Pezzani's motion, having failed to achieve their object in the Council of Government, are now advocating in the local press the sending of a delegation to London to lay their views before the Secretary of State. 7. In this connection a public meeting was held in Port Louis on 31st July last-attended by about 1,000 persons-where a resolution was adopted in favour of the above procedure.
8. It was decided at the meeting that the expenses of the delegates to London Appeals for subscribers have been should be defrayed by a public subscription.
duly circulated by certain of the local newspapers but have, I am told, met with little, if any, response.
9. In my opinion and that of my advisers, there is little real enthusiasm for the Mr. Pezzani may be sincere in his convictions but cause of constitutional reform. the habit of striving to appear always in the limelight must certainly be taken into account in estimating the value of his enthusiasms.
10. With regard to the question as to whether it is necessary or desirable that any change in the Constitution should take place at the present juncture, I should be grateful if you would ascertain the opinion of Sir Herbert Read thereon, in view of his Confidential despatch of the 14th November, 1925.
I have, &c.,
ALLAN GRANNUM.
Officer Administering the Government.
Enclosure in No. 9.
MEMORANDUM OF THE PROCUREUR GENERAL.
HONOURABLE COLONIAL SECRETARY,
THESE papers were left over by my predecessor and it is unfortunate that 1, who may be thought still possessed of the ideas I expounded in Council about this matter, both as an Elected Member, mover of the first resolution, and as a Nominated Member when the Pezzani motion was discussed, should be called upon to report the question.
2. Fortunately, His Excellency Sir Herbert Read has been good enough to send me a copy of my predecessor's report on my motion and I have nothing much to add to what he said on the first question.
Meetings 3. On the Pezzani motion I am still firmly convinced that the proposed changes it adumbrates have not behind them a strong body of public opinion. where the speaker with some powers of eloquence and persuasion, cleverly takes advantage of collected dissatisfaction, where no contradictory argument is heard, may pass numberless resolutions, but they do not necessarily reflect sound public opinion.
4. I am quite sure that reasoned and sound public opinion cannot and does not view with favour a Council of Government with an unofficial majority to which powers sufficiently great to hamper the exercise of authority would be given, without responsibility.
6. The motion of Hon. Pezzani in Council, as the debates show, would have met with crushing defeat if put to the vote, and it is significant that while the majority desired the resolution of my motion (when I was the Senior Member) being referred (again?) to the Secretary of State with the debates on the Pezzani motion not one moved a substantial amendment, re-affirming their express adherence to the vote of the former Council. In the circumstances, can it be said that the Council have this time expressed a strong desire for a change in the Constitution. One may well pause and consider that they have not.
6. It is my firm conviction that there was not, at the time my motion was carried in the last Council, a strong body of public opinion backing it. I am certain
21.
that there is none stronger now behind it than there is behind the views expounded by the Member for Plaines Wilhems and his two or three supporters in Council. 20th August, 1927.
C. 32952/27 [No. 5].
No. 10.
EDOUARD NAIRAC,
Procureur General.
THE OFFICER ADMINISTERING THE GOVERNMENT to THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(Confidential.)
SIR.
(Received 31st October, 1927.)
[Answered by No. 13.]
Government House, Port Louis, 30th September, 1927. Wiru reference to your Confidential despatch of 17th May, 1926,* I have the honour to transmit herewith a memorial from Dr. Reynolds Rohan regarding a proposed revision of the Constitution together with the Procureur General's comments thereon.
2. It would appear that the scheme advocated in the memorial represents the views of a mere fraction of the inhabitants of the Colony and, as such, I do not think that it calls for serious consideration.
I have, &c.,
ALLAN GRANNUM,
Officer Administering the Government.
Enclosure 1 in No. 10.
TO THE RIGHT HONOURABLE COLONEL L. C. M. S, AMERT, M.P., HIS MAJESTY'S PRINCIPAL SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES.
SIR,
WE, the undersigned, inhabitants of Mauritius, respectfully beg to submit for your consideration our views regarding the proposed-revision of the Constitution which has governed us for the last 40 years.
2.
The Revision movement, which originated in a Public meeting convened for that purpose in January, 1923, has passed through alternative periods of activity Those who and of lethargy. In September, 1925, the Council of Government expressed the wish, by an almost unanimous vote, that the Constitution be amended. held this view submitted a plan indicating the lines on which the amendment should be made.
This time, how- 3. No action having seemingly been taken upon that vote, the new Council of Government, elected in January, 1926, took up the question anew.
ever, the plan submitted by the Honourable Member for Plaines Wilhems did not secure a majority. It was, however, decided at that meeting to submit for your consideration the debates of the sittings held in 1925 and in March, 1927.
4. All are agreed that the Constitution should be amended, but all are not agreed as to the manner in which the revision should take place.
That the Council as at present constituted no longer responds to the needs of the Colony is beyond dispute but the remedies suggested will not, in our opinion, correct the evil.
5. When the elective principle was introduced into our Constitution in 1886, the late Sir Célicourt Antelme called attention to the Indian question and foretold that equilibrium would not be maintained between the educated Mauritian element and the uneducated Indian element upon the franchise as approved of by the Secretary of State. The then Governor, the late Sir John Pope Hennessy, said that the Indian peril was a myth and that "Indians were too sensible to be politicians &c., &c. The Reform of 1886 practically ignored the Indian element and did not look upon it as a factor which might later on influence political life in Mauritius.
* 8316/26: not printed.