יקיוויקי
64
"
"the principle of this legislation, I can understand the friends of Sir Hercules Robinson "saying that the system he introduced in Hong Kong in 1880, and the subsequent legislation in Ceylon, were really due to his desire to comply with what he thought were the wishes of the authorities in Downing Street. But if I may presume to say so, such a statement would only indicate another reason why he was not precisely the " class of official who should have been sent to sit in judgment upon me, unless indeed "there were occult instructions to be carried out."
64
13. Now I have already shown that the statement that "I introduced in Hong Kong "in 1860," legislation of this character is not in accordance with fact. As I have explained, this legislation was adopted by the local Legislature, and assented to by Her Majesty's Government, before my arrival in the Colony, at which date I found it in full operation.
14. As to the Ceylon Ordinance No. 17 of 1867, it was passed “in accordance with "the instructions of Her Majesty's Government" for the protection of Her Majesty's troops stationed in the Colony. At the time these instructions were given the Contagious Diseases Acts of 1864 and 1866 had been passed by the Imperial Parliament, and the system authorised by them had been carried, as was then supposed into successful operation in some of the garrison towns and naval sea ports of Great Britain. It may possibly be the case as stated by Sir John Pope Hennessy, that 17 years later, and with the additional experience thus afforded, "Mr. Stansfeld "induced the House of Commons to condemn the principle of this legislation," and that Sir John Pope Hennessy upon his arrival in Mauritius in 1883 put his veto on a similar proposed Ordinance; but it is easy to be wise after the event, and I submit that my compliance in 1867, 20 years ago, not with "what I thought were the wishes "of the Authorities in Downing Street," but with the positive instructions of Her Majesty's Government, to bring the law of Ceylon into unison in this respect with the legislation of the Imperial Parliament, would scarcely indicate that I "was not precisely "the class of official who should have been sent to sit in judgment upon Sir John Pope "Hennessy, unless indeed there were occult instructions to be carried out.'
19
15. Sir John Pope Hennessy proceeds to urge that my antecedents as regards the pass system, and flogging, in Hong Kong and South Africa rendered it undesirable that I should be the person selected to pronounce on his proceedings in Mauritius respecting these two subjects.
16. As regards the pass system in Hong Kong Sir John Pope Hennessy states that the Chinese there suffered much inconvenience and oppression from it, and that “it had "heen vigorously applied during my administration." He adds he modified this
system, rendering it less harsh to the Chinese, and checked the police corruption that for many years had been connected with it. Now it by no means follows that because Sir John Pope Hennessy considered the system required modification in 1890, the same relaxation was necessary or desirable in 1860. When I went to Hong Kong the pass system had been legalised for many years. It was understood then to be working satisfactorily, and if it had appeared to me to be operating with unnecessary inconvenience and oppression, I should have taken steps for the amendment of the law. But so long as the Ordinance remained the law, my administration was surely not to blame for applying it vigorously.
17. As to the flogging in Hong Kong, Sir John Pope Hennessy observes: "I had "felt it necessary to repeal some flogging legislation that Sir Hercules Robinson had " introduced, and I also repealed some flogging laws that hath been enforced with vigour "under his administration." Sir John Pope Hennessy explains that the Ordinance to which he referred was No. 4 of 1863, and he adds: "This was one of Sir Hercules "Robinson's Ordinances." This statement is untrue. I have no recollection either of the terms of the Ordinance, or of the circumstances that gave rise to it. It must, how- ever, have been passed by the Legislative Council, and assented to by Her Majesty. Whether it was a good or bad law, according to the requirements of the day, I cannot now say; but this I can say, that no part of any credit or blame which may,attach to the enacting of it is due to me, as I was not in the administration of the Government of Hong Kong during any part of 1863, the year in which it was passed.
18. As to the pass system and floggings in the Cape, Sir John Pope Hennessy comments in unfavourable terms upon what he conceives to be the "treatment of the "Native community in this Colony under the Pass Act, and the excessive use of "corporal punishment in South Africa." He seeks apparently to connect my name with these supposed abuses, and contrasts my conduct unfavourably with his own in Mauritius, where he had abolished the pass system as affecting the Indian hawkers, and put a stop to Bogging. Sir John Pope Hemmessy seems to have but little acquaintance
179
with either the law or the facts here, as regards these very delicate and difficult questions. I need not, however, pursue these points further; it will, I think be sufficient for me to observe that we are living in this Colony under a system of Parliamentary, as dis- tinguished from personal, Government. My own private opinion is opposed to flogging, except for very grave offences. I am also opposed to a Native Pass Law, and have lately refused to enact one in British Bechuanaland, although pressed to do so by the Administrator. But these are matters which in a "Constitutional" Colony are under the control of the Ministry who are responsible to Parliament, and a Governor cannot, with either propriety or advantage, seek to enforce his own personal views upon them.
19. It is thus, I think, clear that neither my antecedents nor my opinions "rendered "it undesirable that I should be the person selected to pronounce on Sir John Pope Hennessy's proceedings respecting the pass system and corporal punishment" in Mauritius. Sir John Pope Hennessy will perhaps admit this himself, when he finds that I have not in my report imputed to him any blame in either respect.
20. The last instance given by Sir John Pope Hennessy, in his letter under considera- tion, as showing the supposed divergence of our views is as baseless as the rest. He there observes: “ One of the most high-minded men that ever sat in the Executive "Council of Mauritius was the late General Gordon. His recorded views entirely "coincide with my policy here. He was good enough to record his warm sympathy "with my similar policy in Hong Kong. But it is notorious that the reasons that "induced General Gordon to favour the Mauritian policy that I (with Lord Derby's approval) carried out, induced that illustrious man to differ in South Africa on administrative questions with Sir Hercules Robinson."
44
21. But I never had any difference on administrative questions with General Gordon. He was invited by my Ministers to come here to assist them in settling the Basuto difficulty. His views when formed were not shared by Ministers, and they believed they would be repudiated by a large majority in Parliament. Whether these views were sound or not, they were deemed in the then existing political circumstances of the Colony impracticable, and General Gordon resigned. He had had no experience of, and consequently but slight acquaintance with, the principles and working of responsible Government, but whilst he was here I did my utmost to smooth matters, and to discover a" modus vivendi" between him and Ministers. He remained in my house until he embarked for England, and on leaving thanked me in the warmest terms for the counte- nance and support I had given him, and for my earnest endeavours to make his position as little disagreeable as possible. In writing to me from Jerusalein some months later he observed: "I ever remember you and yours, for
you were kind to me in my apparent "downfall; not that it was a real one, for I was truly glad to get out of the country "when I saw it was no good; all expediency." The whole tone and tenor of the letter is such a complete contradiction of Sir John Pope Hennessy's assertion as to our supposed differences, that I venture to attach a certified copy of the original for your perusal.*
22. The statement that General Gordon's recorded views as a member of the Executive Council of Mauritius " entirely coincided with Sir John Pope Hennessy's policy there" is one with which I am not concerned, but I think it would require being looked into before being accepted as a fact. General Gordon left Mauritius in April 1882. Sir John Pope Hennessy did not assume the Government of that island till June 1883; and it is therefore difficult, without some explanation, to understand how General Gordon can have "favoure the Mauritian policy that," according to Sir John Pope Hennessy, "he, with Lord Derby's approval, carried out."
23. I have, I think, thus conclusively established that not one of the grounds advanced by Sir John Pope Hennessy as showing my unfitness for pronouncing on his policy and proceedings in Mauritius rests upon a substantial basis. I will only add that his present letter appears to me to illustrate that peculiar temperament which has, I believe, led to the unhappy and unseemly quarrels between Sir John Pope Hennessy and those around him, with which his official path has been strewu. He does not, I consider, as a rule deal fairly with those who differ from him in opinion, and his official communications with respect to them are habitually marked by an inaptitude for accurate stateinents.
I have, &c. (Signed) HERCULES ROBINSON,
Royal Commissioner. The Right Hon. Sir Henry T. Holland, Bart., M.P., G.C.M.G.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
{
• Not printed.
Z 2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O. 882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.