CO882-(4-5) — Page 78

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

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

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

76

66

28. One of them is the zealous leader of a small anti-Christian party in this island. To the regret and shame of his countrymen he publishes from time to time his peculiar views as a freethinker. In the enclosed extract from the "Sentinelle de Maurice" of the 30th October 1884, you will see, signed by him, his panegyric on a gentleman who hai abandoned the Roman Catholic Church, and was said to have died an avowed infidel. Having dwelt with satisfaction on the fact that there was no religious ceremony, no priest, no prayer of any kind," he sums up what he calls "so beautiful an end

in the following words :-" He lived a freethinker, he died as a freethinker, "he has been buried as a freethinker." He concludes by saying this will remain as an example to his countrymen. In condemning this gentleman's letter, the "Cernéen of the 31st October 1884, referred to the fact that it was not the first time he had pushed himself before the public as the apostle of unbelief in Mauritius. I should not have touched on this subject had not this gentleman now written to you, in the enclosed letter, objecting to what he and his co-memorialists call "the spirit which animates his

Excellency in his relations with the Roman Catholic Church.”

"

29. On the other hand there exists in Mauritius a body of layinen who are lawfully constituted under Ordinance No. 17 of 1880, into a Society "to serve and promote the interests of the Roman Catholic community." My two predecessors, Sir George Bowen and Sir F. N. Broome, have from time to time informed Her Majesty's Govern- ment that this Society, the "Union Catholique de l'Ile Maurice," is the true repre- sentative of the lay Roman Catholics of the island. Of that there is no doubt whatever. I think it a fortunate circumstance for Her Majesty's Government, and for the future interest of Mauritius, that this influential body of Roman Catholic laymen of high character exists here as a Corporation established by law.

30. When so large a part of the enclosed letter, and the only part perhaps setting forth particular instances, is devoted to the alleged action of the local Government with respect to the head of the Roman Catholic Church it may be asked why should the unauthorised memorialists move in such a matter, when the real representatives of Roman Catholic opinion in the island have never found fault with the Governor.

31. On pages 1 and 2 the memorialists say:

1. At a meeting of the Legislative Council, shortly after his accession to office, the Governor denounced the conduct of one of his predecessors who had, according to him, left a note or minute, in which he recommended that a Mauritian of French origin should never be employed in the despatch branch of the Colonial Secretary's office."

2. At a dinner given by the Mauritius Club, at which Admiral Hewett was present, in replying to a toast, Sir John Pope Hennessy said that the Mauritians, like the Irish, felt the heavy hand of the English."

The statement they attribute to me in the latter paragraph was never made by me. The dinner at the Mauritius Club took place three years ago, but nothing of the kind appeared in any of the reports, nor in any publication since then. I have shown the chairman of the banquet in question this passage in the memorialists' letter, and he says: "It is absolutely untrue; no one whatever made such a remark."

The

32. As regards what the memorialists allege I said in the Legislative Council, they do not quote the words or give any reference to the minutes. But in their statement they introduce a word I did not use and they omit the material words I used. following is the passage in question. It is to be found on page 224 of the minutes of the Council of Government for 1883-84 :--

"

Nothing surprised me more in looking through the papers in the Governor's office than to find it recorded within the last three or four years that the Despatch Branch of the Colonial Secretary's office should be kept filled with one race only; that whilst gentlemen of the Mauritian race and coloured clerks of Indian and African blood might be allowed to enter the general branch of the office, the clerks in the Despatch Branch, which was described as the most important branch, should be all Englishmen. I have already set aside that practice which was never sanctioned by the Queen or the Secretary of State, and I need hardly assure you that now all such race distinction is finally abolished in this Colony.

"Long before Sir Penrose Julyan's inquiry, the delusion of imagining that the best inen for appointments could not be got in this Island has been exposed by one of the ablest of my predecessors, Sir William Stevenson. He pointed out in a despatch to the Duke of Newcastle the evils involved in what are called appointments from home; that is from outside this island. Sir William Stevenson exposed those evils in 1858. Sir l'enrose Julyan recorded a similar state of things and reported against it in 1874. But, after the appointment now made of a Mauritian Chief Judge, you may fairly

77

consider the old system, against which the Mauritians have so long protested, as at

an end."

32. I see nothing in that statement to retract. So far from dividing classes or creating discontent, the policy indicated in that statement has had the opposite effect. The language I used about the impolicy of appointing Englishmen instead of gentlemen of the Mauritian race to appointments in Mauritius had already been used by Sir William Stevenson, and in paragraphs 14 and 15 of his report of 1874, by Sir Penrose Julyan, my statement does not contain the words "French origin." It is in a despatch from the Secretary of State of the 24th of January 1884,* that the advantage of having high appointments filled by gentlemen of French origin is indicated. In announcing the appointment of Mr. F. C. Williams to be a Puisne Judge, Lord Derby said, "Mr. Williams is of French extraction, and is well acquainted with the French language."

34. In pages 2 and 3 the memorialists criticise my appointment of an Electoral Com- mission in 1884 and my despatches about the franchise then recommended. I appointed the Commission by Lord Derby's instructions. His Lordship approved of what I did. He supported the views of the majority of the Commission on many points whilst he somewhat lowered the proposed franchise with the view especially of admitting a large class of Indians.

35. When I had to submit his despatch to the Council of Government I argued in support of the lower franchise the minority had suggested and Lord Derby had approved, and that franchise which is the existing one, was adopted by the Council on, my recommendation.

36. The memorialists place me in a position of some delicacy in quoting against me the following statement made by Governor Sir George Bowen when lecturing on Imperial Federation, at the Colonial Institute, in June last.

"I was Governor of Mauritius (1879-83), in which beautiful island, as in Canada, English is blended with French colonization, and where there were many embarrassing questions, but I left all races and classes in amity and contentment."

My worthy predecessor arrived in Mauritius in April 1879 and left in December 1880. He was not in the Colony in any part of the years 1881, 1882, and 1883. During four- fifths of that time the Colony was administered with great ability and unremitting labour by Sir Frederick Napier Broome. The remaining fifth-from 1st June 1883- was the beginning of my administration.

37. Is it true that Sir George Bowen, who had to contend with "many embarrassing questions" left me a legacy of universal amity and contentment? His own despatches and Sir Frederick Napier Broome's despatches do not support this statement.

38. When I was appointed in December 1882, the Secretary of State gave me in London some printed despatches to read which seemed to cause a little anxiety in Downing Street.

One of those despatches had transmitted a petition to the Queen-the most influential petition it was said that had ever come from Mauritius-praying for a change in the constitution for the reasons set forth in a report attached to the petition.

39. The principal allegations in that report, dated 7th July 1882, were as follows :— "The system of government now in force in Mauritius

is no longer in keeping with the circumstances and the aspirations of the Colony nor with its material, moral, and intellectual condition."

"The constitution of the Council of Government is essentially defective "What we complain of is the administration of our local affairs.

"For some years past everything has seemed to conspire to show even to the most blind, how defective is our system of government and how it fails to protect the interests of the Colony.

"The instances we have just quoted, and many others besides, establish clearly that the Council of Government does not give satisfaction to the Colony

"There are laws that should be voted, and which are neglected; others which are voted, and which are opposed to the views of the community.

"Despotic power unavoidably engenders arbitrariness, even when placed in the hands of the most just and liberal men; hence the frequent occasions we have had to complain of the attitude of the Colonial Office towards us."

40. Lieutenant-Governor Broome described the public meeting at which this petition was adopted as being “numerous, influential, and orderly.”

• Not printed.

K 3