CO882-(4-5) — Page 133

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

5 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

182

accused me of "misrepresenting facts, and attempting to stir up religious antipathies in Mauritius."

14. After my suspension, and some days after Sir Hercules Robinson left Mauritius, it was rumoured that a serious and voluminous document had been put in by Dr. Beaugeard as evidence against me, in which not only the charges that I had allied myself with the leading religious denomination-the Roman Catholics-against their Bishop, and that I had shown partisanship, were set forth, but in which the suggestion was made that I should be suspended on the ground that trouble, and "even danger," would result if I were maintained as Governor. It was said that Sir Hercules Robinson accepted those statements, and acted upon the suggestion.

15. Now that I have returned to England, I find that the rumours in Mauritius were substantially correct, When I drew Sir Henry Holland's attention to the fact that I had not seen all the documentary evidence against me referred to in Sir Hercules Robinson's report, the Secretary of State directed that I should get a copy, amongst other documents, of Dr. Beaugeard's letter of the 11th of December 1886.

16. Accordingly, on the 14th of April 1887, I was shown the document in question in Downing Street, and had an opportunity, for the first time, of reading it. I was given at the same time a copy of it. It fills 140 folio pages. It is probably the most important document received as evidence against me. That it had some influence on Bir Hercules Robinson may be inferred from twò facts. Sir Hercules Robinson refers to it in paragraph 56 of his report, as well as in the schedule of his report, and in paragraph 100 he not only adopts some of the assertions in Dr. Beaugeard's letters, but, on the turning point of his procedure, he uses Dr. Beaugeard's words, or phrases almost identical with his, as to its being "even dangerous" to leave me in the administration of the Government.

17. As a matter of fact, there is not a single material statement in Dr. Beaugeard's letter of the 11th of December that could not effectually have been disposed of had Sir Hercules Robinson given me an opportunity of seeing it. He suspended me three days after he had received it. He left Mauritius without letting me see it. It is referred to in his report of the 7th of January to the Secretary of State. Yet it was never shown to me till four months after my suspension.

18. Apart from other grounds on which it might be fairly argued that my interests have been prejudiced by the procedure adopted, let me refer Sir Henry Holland to my despatch of the 18th of January, in which I alluded to the hardship and public incon- venience that might be involved in calling me away from Mauritius to give explanations concerning Sir Hercules Robinson's report on the affairs of Mauritius. The fact that this long letter of Dr. Beaugeard was not shown to me until I had been called away from the Colony; in other words, until I was removed from the place where the materials for disproving it were at hand, has, with some facts of a similar nature, undoubtedly prejudiced my interests.

19. This brings me to a question which I venture to submit to Sir Henry Holland. Four weeks have elapsed since my arrival in England. I think I may fairly ask Sir Henry Holland to annul the suspension upon the facts already known to him, whilst, of course, reserving the full right he has to call upon me for any explanations, on any subject, he may think proper to demand, and which explanations I shall at all times be most happy to afford.

Sir R. G. W. Herbert, K.C.B., Under Secretary of State.

No. 93.

I have, &c.

(Signed) J. POPE HENNESSY.

The RIGHT ON. SIR HERCULES ROBINSON, G.C.M.G., to the RIGHT HON. SIR H. T. HOLLAND, BarT., G.C.M.G. (Received May 4, 1887.)

SIR,

Government House, Cape Town,

April 12, 1887.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch of the 14th March, transmitting to me a copy of a letter from Sir John Pope Hennessy dated the 20th January last, questioning the legality in certain respects of the inquiry recently held by me into the affairs of Mauritius.

• No. 66.

† Not printed.

183

2. I have already in previous despatches explained fully the reasons which led me to the conclusion that it was undesirable the public and the press should be admitted to the sittings of the Royal Commission, and also the course adopted with regard to the few persons unable to express themselves fluently in English, who volunteered to appear before the Commission, but whose testimony was not deemed material. I need not, therefore, go over the same ground again here. I will only observe that Sir John Pope Hennessy's somewhat subtle legal arguments on these points appear to me fallacious.

3. The Ordinance 7 of 1886, entitled "An Ordinance to confer certain Powers on "the Commissioner appointed by Her Majesty the Queen to inquire into the Affairs of "Mauritius," was introduced to enable me to compel, if necessary, the attendance of witnesses, to administer to them an oath or an affirmation or a declaration, and to impose penalties for giving wilful false evidence. Article 4 accordingly enacted that "the law "of Mauritius relating to witnesses and evidence shall be applicable to all witnesses

appearing, and to all evidence taken, before the Commissioner."

66

But the Ordinance did not impose on the Commissioner any obligation as to the form of the inquiry, nor did it any way fetter his discretion as to the persons to be summoned.

4. It appears to me that Sir John Pope Hennessy's contention that because the publicity of trials in the Supreme Court of Mauritius is obligatory by law, the sittings of the Royal Commission in camera "were unlawful," is a non sequitur. So in like manner it does not follow that because the hearing of French witnesses by interpreters is practised by the High Court, there was anything "unlawful" in my abstaining from‹ summoning and hearing French witnesses by interpreters, whose evidence was not deemed by me material to the inquiry.

5. Sir John Pope Hennessy complains that some of the witnesses were allowed to alter their statements with their own bands. The course adopted throughout the inquiry was this: All witnesses who asked permission to do so were allowed to peruse and correct their evidence, when it was written out from the shorthand notes, and if their corrections were not considered by Mr. Solomon, my legal adviser, to be improper, they were allowed to stand. The object of the investigation was to ascertain what each witness really desired to state, and not to bind him to any unguarded expression of opinion which on reflection he might desire to modify. The witnesses who took most advantage of the permission were Sir Virgil Naz and Dr. Meldrum, who appeared on Sir John Pope Hennessy's side. A perusal of the original notes of their evidence, now in your office, will show the very great length to which they stretched the permission accorded to them, a length to which I think Mr. Solomon would have objected, if they had not been witnesses for the defence.

6. Sir John Pope Hennessy remarks also that "the shorthand writer does not seem to "have been sworn at the time and in the manner required by the law of Mauritius." I am not aware of the law to which Sir John Pope Hennessy refers, and cannot there- fore express an opinion as to its applicability. Interpreters are sworn for obvious reasons, but I do not ever remember on an inquiry of this kind a shorthand writer being sworn, nor do I see what he could swear to do, except to follow the speakers as accurately as his skill would admit of. The best course to ensure the accurate expression of what the witnesses at all events wished to state, was to allow them to correct their evidence as reported, and this was done.

7. Sir John Pope Hennessy observes that "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," but that this right was set at naught by my sudden departure before the inquiry was finished."

C

"

8. Now Sir John Pope Hennessy was told by me before the commencement of the inquiry that he was at liberty to be present at all the sittings of the Commission, and to cross-examine the witnesses. He declined to avail himself of this offer. Again, later on, when the inquiry was approaching its close, Mr. Solomon suggested to Sir John Pope Hennessy that he might have any witnesses he pleased recalled, and cross-examined by himself or by counsel. This he also declined, stating that he would prefer to submit minutes on the evidence of each adverse witness, and that he did not see why the witnesses need be allowed to peruse his remarks. Lastly, on the 13th December, I wrote to Sir John Pope Hennessy that I proposed leaving for the Cape on the 18th, and that up to that date I would be ready to examine any witnesses he desired to call. He declined to act on this offer, or to be a party to any further proceedings. It will thus be seen that Sir John Pope Hennessy had repeated opportunities to cross-examine the witnesses during the course of the investigation, but declined to avail himself of them.

Z4

Q