CO882-(4-5) — Page 112

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :--

minimumin TLC.O. 882

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

SIR,

142

No. 54.

4.

SIR J. POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON. EDWARD

STANHOPE, M.P. (Received February 9, 1887.)

Mauritius, December 31, 1886.

In my despatch of the 18th December, I ventured to ask, "Has the Com- "missioner conducted the inquiry and exercised the discretion vested in him by the two "Commissions of the 25th September, in accordance with your instructions of the 29th "of September, and according to the local Ordinance No. 7 of 1886 ? "

I do not propose at present to make any remarks on the first part of this question, but as to the second part it may now be convenient to consider it.

2. My counsel are of opinion that Sir Hercules Robinson did not conduct the inquiry in accordance with the local law.

3. Ordinance 7 of 1886 is entitled, "An Ordinance to confer certain powers on the "Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the affairs of the Colony of Mauritius." A similar Ordinance was passed for the Royal Commission of 1874, on the treatment of immigrants in Mauritius. The inquiry of 1874 and the inquiry of 1886 were both taken upon oath.

4. Clause 4 of the Ordinance says, "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. The inquiry of 1874 was in public. The inquiry of 1886 was a secret inquiry. 6. The majority of the witnesses examined by the Royal Commission of 1874 could only speak French. Members of the Commission of 1874 could speak French, but with French-speaking witnesses interpreters were employed, as in the Supreme Court of Mauritius.

7. Neither the Commissioner of 1886, the Secretary, nor the law adviser that was brought from the Cape, could speak French. Mauritian witnesses who could only speak French were rejected as witnesses. No evidence was taken except that given by persons who could speak English.

8. The inquiry of 1886 is the first occasion on which an inquiry upon oath relating to the public affairs of the Colony had been held in secret. It is also the first occasion in Mauritius in which witnesses appearing before the Commissioner were ruled to be ineligible as witnesses because they did not speak English.

9. Witnesses who went to the Commissioner to testify on my behalf were told that they could not be examined as they only spoke French. The witnesses who appeared against me were all English-speaking witnesses, and not one of them was rejected.

10. The English-speaking population constitute a very small minority in Mauritius. The national customs, including the French language, was guaranteed to the inhabitants by the Capitulation of 1810. In the Council of Government there is a French reporter and an English reporter. The majority of the Elected Members always deliver their speeches in French. In all the Roman Catholic churches the only language used, besides Latin, is French, French is the language of domestic life in Mauritius. In fact it is the language of the Colony. As the late Mr. Cameron, the special correspondent of the "Standard," writing from Mauritius in January 1883, said," After 70 years of

British rule the French language still rules supreme in the Island.”

11. To reject the testimony of French-speaking witnesses on the ground that they could not speak English was not according to the law of Mauritius relating to witnesses.

12. To reject such testimony in an inquiry into the affairs of Mauritius was not only against all precedent and local law on the subject, but it precluded the possibility of a fair and thorough inquiry.

13. The minutes of evidence recorded by the Commissioners in 1874 contain no hearsay evidence. The minutes of evidence recorded by Sir Hercules Robinson and duly certified by his Secretary, contain much hearsay evidence. According to a decision of the Supreme Court of Mauritius the recording of such illegal evidence vitiates the inquiry.

14. Even in dealing with specific charges, a considerable quantity of matter not relevant to the charges or to the issue appears on the minutes of evidence as recorded in the inquiry of 1886.

15. By far the greater part of the testimony accepted by Sir Hercules Robinson in support of certain charges against me was not the best evidence procurable. Witnesses

• No. 44.

143

made sworn statements respecting the contents of documents, and those statements were accepted and recorded as evidence when the documents could have been at once obtained, the real evidence seen, and the falsity of the oral testimony detected.

16. All this was a violation of the local law.

17. It also improperly prejudiced the mind of the Commissioner. For instance, Mr. Elliott charged me with having mentioned his name in a certain despatch to the Secretary of State. My doing so was supposed to be an act of "hostility amounting to persecution." If Sir Hercules Robinson instead of taking this second-hand account of the despatch had sent across to the neighbouring office where it was filed he would have seen that Mr. Elliott's name was not mentioned in it. The same witness, to establish the "hostility amounting to persecution," gave evidence of another despatch of mine that ought to have transmitted a certain report, but according to him did not do so. Had the despatch been called for, it would at once have been manifest that the second-hand testimony was not true, that the report in question had been duly transmitted in the despatch, and its contents properly described by me. And so on throughout the whole of this official's testimony, second-hand statements recorded on the minutes, when the "best evidence" was readily procurable and would have contradicted the witness.

18. My analysis of the evidence of the English officials shows that this was constantly done by the Commissioner.

19. There cannot be any doubt but the legal evidence so taken influenced him materially in the decision to which he abruptly came.

I have, &c. (Signed)

The Right Hon. E. Stanhope, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

No. 55.

J. POPE HENNESSY.

ADMINISTRATOR Major-GenERAL W. H. HAWLEY to the RIGHT HON. EDWARD

STANHOPE, M.P. (Received February 9, 1887.)

SIB,

(No. 33.)

Government House, Mauritius, January 17, 1887.

I HAVE the honour to transmit to you two petitions, both of which refer to the action of Sir Hercules Robinson, G.C.M.G.

The first of these documents is addressed to Her most Gracious Majesty the Queen, and is stated, in the covering letter addressed to me by Sir V. Naz, K.C.M.G., and Mr. Basset, of which a copy is also enclosed, to be signed by 4,267 inhabitants of Mauritius; the second petition is signed by the Honourables Dr. O. Beaugeard, G. de Coriolis, C. Antelme, C.M.G., and C. Planel.

I only received the petition to Her Majesty on the afternoon of the 14th, and there has not been time for a proper examination of the signatures to be made. I do not, therefore, forward them by this mail, but I propose to write a further despatch respecting them by the next mail. There can be no doubt, however, that the petition represents the views of a considerable and influential section of the community.

The second petition signed by the four members represents, I believe, the views of that large body of the electorate who supported these gentlemen on the occasion of the last election.

As I am not in presence (possession ?) of Sir Hercules Robinson's report on Sir J. P, Hennessy's administration, I do not feel called upon to make any further remarks on the' subject.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

The Right Honourable Edward Stanhope, M.P.,

&c.

&c.

&c.

W. H. HAWLEY,

Major-General.

P.S.--Since this despatch was prepared I have received some papers from Mr. Basset, Secretary to the General Meeting of the Petitioners, which are said to contain 25a additional signatures.

8 4