CO882-(4-5) — Page 128

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

15 + £ 2 1

unimmili

Reference :--

C.O. 882

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

172

either myself or my legal adviser to be open to such an objection. All the evidence given adverse to Sir John Pope Hennessy appeared to us to have some bearing upon either the subjects specified by the Secretary of State, or the charges advanced by the English officials, or the five memorialists. It was my desire, looking to the peculiar nature of the inquiry, to give as much latitude to the witnesses as possible. Both sides were treated alike, and allowed to state their facts and views without restraint. Some of the Governor's witnesses certainly strained this, liberty to the uttermost, notably one of them who put in as evidence a prepared speech of 49 pages of print, which gave a history of events in Mauritius from his own point of view for many years, and contained allusions and assertions of a very questionable character. All the evidence for and against the Governor was sent to Sir John Pope Hennessy as fast as it was written out, for his observations, and he has only himself to blame if it has been placed on record without his observations upon it. He refrained from acting on the permission, which I gave him at the outset, to be present at each meeting of the Commission to hear and cross-examine the witnesses. He declined later on to adopt Mr. Solomon's suggestion that any witnesses whose facts he questioned should be recalled, and cross-examined by himself or a counsel. And he failed to give me before my deputure from the island his remarks upon each adverse witness' evidence, although I repeatedly applied to him for them. It appears to me Sir John Pope Hennessy should have made these complaints at the time, and not have waited till after the close of the inquiry, and till the opportunity for my recalling the witnesses has passed away.

11. Sir John Pope Hennessy states: 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 made sworn statements respecting the " contents of documents, and these 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." In illustration of this assertion Sir John Pope Hennessy observes: "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 trans- "mmitted 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, und "its contents properly described by me. And so on throughout the whole of this "official's testimony, second-hand statements were recorded on the minutes when the "best evidence' was readily procurable and would have contradicted the witness. My analysis of the evidence of the English officials shows that this was constantly done by the Commissioner."

BL

44

CL

#

*

t

12. It will, I think, be sufficient for me to deal with the two specific instances referred to by Sir John Pope Hennessy, in which he considers that I accepted testimony in support of charges against him which was not the best evidence procurable. I have not the evidence to refer to, it being now in your office, but, if-1 remember rightly, Mr. Elliott guarded himself against making any positive assertion in reference to despatches which he admitted he had never seen. He merely stated his belief that his name was mentioned in one despatch to the Secretary of State, and that a report was withheld from another despatch, because the Secretary of State's answers which were sent to him seemed to point to that conclusion. This evidence was at once forwarded to Sir John Pope Hennessy, and it appears to me that it was for him then and there to have corrected Mr. Elliott's inferences if they were incorrect, and not for me to hunt about for a confirmatibo of them. Besides the "best evidence was not "readily procuráble," as stated by Sir John Pope Hennessy. He himself might have ebown by a reference to his drafts that he had not intended to mention Mr. Elliott's name in one despatch, and that he had intended to annex a certain report to another, but the correctness or incor- rectness of Mr. Elliott's surmises could only have been conclusively established by au inspection of the despatches with their enclosures as received by the Secretary of State, and these were in Downing Street, and not, as stated by Sir John Pope Hennessy, “filed "in the neighbouring office."

13. Again Sir John Pope Hennessy states that Mr. Elliott pointed to the supposed insertion of his name in one despatch and the suppression of a report in another as acts of "hostility amounting to persecution." This is not correct. These individual acta

173

were never put forward by Mr. Elliott as amounting to "persecution." They, as well as a vast number of other instances, were adduced by Mr. Elliott, and the other 22 English officials who came forward, as showing the grounds upon which those officials had arrived at the conclusions embodied in their charges.

14. Two of these charges (Nos. 2 and 4) were that Sir John Pope Hennessy had adopted towards his English officials, as a class, and systematically, an attitude of hos tility which "in some cases" developed into persecution, and that the way in which he had attacked the character of some of his English officials had created a profound feeling of distrust, and the conviction that there was no safety for them under his Government.

15. It appeared to me that the material question for consideration was not whether every separate instance adduced by these officers of what they considered unfair treat- ment was well founded, but whether as a whole they entertained in good faith the convictions they expressed, or were the victims of an hallucination, or the accomplices in a couspiracy.

16. After hearing all that the 23 English officials had to state in support of their charges, and all that the 16 English officials had to say who considered that Sir John Pope Hennessy had not shown hostility to them personally and that they were safe under his Government, I arrived at the conclusion that the majority were honestly con- vinced that Englishmen serving under Sir John Pope Hennessy were subject to disabilities in consequence of his alleged anti-English leaning. They seemed to believe also, conscientiously, that he had adopted towards them as a class and systematically an attitude of hostility which in some cases had developed into persecution-and that there was no safety for them under his rule.

17. I considered that after making every allowance for possible misconceptions in some of the instances of hostility specified in the evidence, there remained enough to account for the distrust entertained by these officers. The existence of such a wide- spread distrust amongst many of the most important of the heads of Departments appeared to me to be fatal to the good government of the Colony; and I was of opinion that after what had taken place before the Commission, these officers and Sir John Pope Hennessy could never again work harmoniously together.

18. In compliance with my instructions, I communicated these "conclusions" to the Secretary of State in my report, and I see nothing in Sir John Pope Hennessy's present letter which would enable me either to modify or retract them.

HERCULES ROBINSON, Royal Commissioner.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

&c.

The Right Hon. Sir H. T. Holland, Bart., G.C.M.G.,

&c.

&c.

No. 86.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR HERCULES ROBINSON, G.C.M.G., to THE RIGHT HON. SIR H. T. HOLLAND, BART., G.C.M.G., M.P. (Received April 9, 1887.)

Government House, Cape Town,

March 15, 1887.

SIR,

WITH reference to the correspondence which has passed between us, relative to the Mauritius inquiry, since the transmission to you of my reports of the 7th and 8th January last, I beg leave to submit for your consideration a few observations.

2. In Mr. Stanhope's despatch of the 29th September last,† I was informed that Her Majesty's Government had decided that a thorough inquiry into the administration of Mauritius, and into the principal complaints made by persons unconnected with the Government, should be held without further delay.

3. I was asked to undertake the inquiry, and nine heads were specified which I was requested to examine and report upon. The manner of carrying out the personal examination on the spot, which Mr. Stanhope considered necessary, was left entirely to wy discretion, and I was simply requested to favour Her Majesty's Government with

"conclusions and recommendations "

upon the principal questions indicated. 4. In compliance with this request I proceeded to Mauritius. On my way there I perused the voluminous correspondence, in original, which had passed between Sir John Pope Hennessy and the several Secretaries of State since the local squabbles commenced

my

• Nos. 48 and 49.

Y 3

† No. 21

I