CO882-(4-5) — Page 122

160

12. In this case a small minority made complaints that crime had largely increased owing to the Governor's leniency, that the finances were in a most unsatisfactory state, &c., whilst at the same time a newly-appointed official, Mr. Clifford Lloyd, complained that the report of his speech, and of other speakers in the Council on the 19th of April, had been sent off by the Governor without having been seen or corrected by the speakers; and Mr. Lloyd also complained that in the despatch of the 10th of May 1886,* trans- mitting his speech and the speeches of the other members, the Governor had made serious and deliberate misstatements and misrepresentations.

13. In the Governor's despatch of 29th September 1886,† and in preceding despatches, all these complaints were answered and refuted.

14. But without waiting for the explanations, Her Majesty's Government seem to have formed a hasty conclusion on the case, or at least to have attempted to form a conclusion by printing the secret commission of the 25th September appointing the Governor of the Cape to be also Governor of Mauritius.

15. The Governor of the Cape, who was sent here to act as prosecutor and judge of another Governor, was not the official superior of the person he was sent to judge.

16. The Governor of a Colony, whilst within the precincts of his Government, is the Queen's Representative (Colonial Regulations, Clause 12).

17. The Ordinance which enabled Sir Hercules Robinson to examine witnesses on oath had to receive my assent to give it legal validity. I assented to it, in the Queen's name, on the 10th of November.

18. The subsequent money vote for the expenses of the Commission of Inquiry also required and received my assent as the Queen's Representative.

19. All these facts were publicly gazetted and made known in a Colony where nearly all the educated and intelligent classes are of the French race, and where the great mass of the rest of the population is composed of Indian subjects of the Queen.

20. Amidst such a population, the Queen's Representative is suddenly struck down by his equal in official rank.

21. To make it worse, a sort of inquiry or trial had been attempted and suddenly broken off, with the explanation that no defence would affect the conclusion.

22. Putting aside my questions of abstract justice or the legal rights of an individual, how has all this, in the eyes of the population, affected the dignity of the Sovereign and the respect they have been taught to entertain for Her Majesty's Representative?

23. Putting aside also the personal fact that the Indian immigrants (250,000 out of a population of 379,000) had come to regard the Governor as their true protector and friend, what do they think of the trial in secret and the conclusion arrived at without the defence being heard?

24. In my despatch of the 18th instant I gave some special reasons why Sir Hercules Robinson should not have been sent to sit in judgment upon me. What I have now stated i venture with great respect to lay before you as some of the general grounds (there are many others) of objection to the course you adopted, of sending one Governor to try another Governor whilst the latter was still conducting his government.

I have, &c. (Signed) J. POPE HENNESSY.

161

3. Article 2 of Ordinance No. 15 of 1881 ("An Ordinance to amend the law of evidence"), says :—

"The word trial' includes any inquiry, hearing, or other proceeding in any court of justice, or before any person having now or hereafter by law or by consent of parties authority to hear, receive, or examine evidence."

4. Article 15 of the same Ordinance says:-

"In cases provided for by this Ordinance or by any other law in force in the Colony, the law of England and the practice of the High Court of Justice with regard to evidence and witnesses at trials, and to perpetuating testimony, shall be taken and held to be, so far as such law and practice are applicable, and such as they exist at the passing of this Ordinance, the law of this Colony and the practice of the Supreme Court.

5. From the foregoing it results that the publicity of trials and the hearing of witnesses by interpreters as practised by the High Court are obligatory by the law of Mauritius.

6. Hence the secrecy of Sir Hercules Robinson's enquiry and his refusal to hear witnesses who only spoke French were unlawful.

7. Furthermore, some of the witnesses who had heen heard on oath were allowed some days after the date of their deposition, when they were no longer on oath, to alter their statements with their own hands. For example, Bishop Scarisbrick, according to the original depositions in the handwriting of the shorthand-writer, said, with reference to his last visit to Rome:--

"I have not been able to clear myself or to put things in their true light."

But some days after he added, in his own handwriting, the words "without difficulty."

8. The Supreme Court has always held that the record of any trial in Mauritius must show that the person accused had an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses.

9. The right to cross-examine witnesses is given by Article 61 of Ordinance 35 of 1852, and Article 99 of Ordinance 29 of 1853.

10. Though this right of cross-examination was originally promised by the Commissioner, it was set at naught by his sudden departure before the inquiry was finished.

11. The shorthand-writer does not seem to have been sworn at the time and in the manner required by the law of Mauritius.

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

&c.

&c.

&c.

I have, &c. (Signed) J. POPE HENNESSY.

No. 70.

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTIC.O. 882

5

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDONİ

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

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

&c.

&c.

&c.

SIR,

No. 69.

SIR J. POPE HENNESSY, K.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON. EDWARD STANHOPE, M.P. (Received March 7, 1887.)

Mauritius, January 20, 1887.

In addition to what is stated in my despatch of the 31st of December 1886,§ I have the honour to invite your attention to the following points.

2. Article 4 of Ordinance VII. of 1886 (“ An ordinance to confer certain powers on the "Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty the Queen to inquire into the affairs of "Mauritius"), 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 who is hereby authorised to administer an oath or an affirmation or a declaration when an affirmation or declaration would by such law be allowable, to any witness appearing before him."

§ No. 61.

• No. 8.

† No. 31.

↑ No. 67.

ADMINISTRATOR MAJOR-GENERAL W. H. HAWLEY to the RIGHT HON. SIR H. T. HOLLAND, BART., G.C.M.G., M.P. (Received March 7, 1887.)

Government House, Mauritius,

February 11, 1887.

SIR,

(No. 75.)

In continuation of my despatch of the 17th ultimo, forwarding a petition to Her most Gracious Majesty the Queen, I have now the honour to transmit 271 pagest containing the signatures to this petition.

2. I stated in the above-quoted despatch that I would forward a report upon the signatures, and I now enclose one drawn up by the Acting Receiver-General and the Acting Assistant Colonial Secretary.

3. The only point to which I call your particular attention is the great difference between the number of electors mentioned in the covering letter, copy of which was forwarded by my last despatch, viz., 1,635, and the number mentioned by Messrs. Elliott and Ackroyd, viz., 984. For this discrepancy I cannot account, but as Messrs, Elliott and Ackroyd have gone very carefully into the matter, I have no reason to doubt that the figure given by them is substantially correct.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

The Right Hon. Sir Henry T. Holland, G.C.M.G.,

K 34914,

&c.

&c.

• No. 65.

&c.

W. H. HAWLEY,

Major-General.

† Not printed.

X