CO882-(4-5) — Page 93

UPP

PUBLIC RECORD

OFFICE

Reference :-

C.O. 882

сл

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

106

38. Upon a review of the whole of the evidence in this case, the conclusions at which I have arrived are that the Governor's alleged interference at the elections has not been proved; although, looking to the indiscreet action of Mr. Beyts, and the injudicious manner in which the question was dealt with, when raised in the Legislative Council, I am not surprised that such a charge has been advanced. I consider that the reasons given by the Governor, in his despatch to the Secretary of State of the 23rd January 1886,* for not nominating Mr. Ferguson to an unofficial seat, as directed by the Secretary of State, are groundless; and that a very unmerited slight has thus been put upon a gentleman who is greatly esteemed throughout the Mauritius community. I accordingly recommend that Her Majesty's Government direct the first vacancy amongst the unofficial nominee seats to be offered to Mr. Ferguson.

3. Mr. Cockburn Stewart's Case.

39. Towards the close of 1884 charges of financial irregularities in connexion with railway travelling were advanced against Mr. Cockburn Stewart, the Assistant Colonial Secretary, which led to his suspension by the Executive Council. He was, however, allowed, at his own request, to proceed to England, on leave of absence without salary, to explain his conduct to the Secretary of State, and he left Mauritius for this purpose in December 1884.

40. On the 16th October 1885, Colonel Stanley wrote to the Governor that he had not confirmed Mr. Cockburn Stewart's suspension for his railway irregularities, but con- sidered his explanations as to other charges of financial irregularities, subsequently brought against him by the Governor, unsatisfactory, and he was accordingly directed to return to Mauritius and stand an inquiry into those charges, unless he preferred to resign his office.

41. Mr. Cockburn Stewart returned on the 4th March 1886, and was interdicted from that day by the Governor, acting with the concurrence of the Executive Council. He was furnished with the charges against him, and a certain time was granted to him to make his defence.

42. Delays then arose, for which Mr. Cockburn Stewart was mainly responsible, on account of illness, up to the 29th June 1886, on which day the inquiry was fixed for the 2nd July. From the 2nd July till its hearing on the 4th August, the inquiry was postponed, and neither the Governor, nor the Procureur-Général accounts satis- factorily for this delay, which occurred notwithstanding the urgent remonstrances of Mr. Cockburn Stewart and Mr. Clifford Lloyd.

43. The inquiry, at last, was held on the 4th, 5th, and 9th August, in the presence of the Governor, and of the Executive Council consisting of five members. The Honourable C. Antelme, C.M.G., was allowed to appear as a friend to assist Mr. Cockburn Stewart in the examination of witnesses.

44. Twelve charges were brought before the Council, of which one was withdrawn. On one Mr. Cockburn Stewart was unanimously acquitted, while three were unanimously decided to have been proved against hi n. The remaining seven were held to have been not proved by the votes of three members against two.

45. The three charges held to have been proved were merely statements of dates and facts about which there was no dispute. They allege that over-payments of salary had been made to Mr. Cockburn Stewart, which were not refunded by him until certain dates, and that he had on the 16th December 1880, nearly six years ago, signed the usual monthly certificate as to the security bonds of the Treasury officials, which, as regards himself, was not correct. This certificate, it is shown, was signed by him inadvertently, after he had been only a few days in office as Acting Treasurer, and the certificate of the following menth showed that the previous certificate had been signed in good faith, and without any intention to deceive, it being the custom of the service to allow a reasonable time for the completion of security bonds.

46. The seven charges held by the majority not to be proved were mainly conclu- sions deduced from the other three, as well as imputations of private indebtedness. The evidence produced and heard was voluminous. It supports the general conclusion, upon which, I believe, all the members of the Executive Council were agreed, that Mr. Cockburn Stewart had been guilty of carelessness and negligence in the discharge of his official duties, but not of any offence which could fairly be considered as fraudulent or dishonest.

47. Upon the question whether Mr. Cockburn Stewart should or should not be suspended, the decision of the Council was against suspension by a majority of three to

• No. 4.

two.

107

The Governor, however, decided to act in opposition to the advice of the majority, and suspended Mr. Cockburn Stewart until the decision of the Secretary of State could be known.

48. It may be remarked that upon the seven charges on which the Council divided, as well as upon the question whether Mr. Cockburn Stewart should be suspended, the voting was "solid," Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the Lieutenant-Governor, Colonel Hawley, the officer commanding the troops, and Mr. Elliott, the Auditor-Generai and Acting Treasurer-General, being in every case for Mr. Cockburn Stewart, whilst Mr. Cox, the Acting Procureur-Général, and Mr. de Joux, the Acting Auditor-General, were against bim. The permanent members of the Executive Council were thus all in favour of Mr. Cockburn Stewart, whilst those unfavourable to him held only acting appointments. 49. I may further observe that the difficulty in the way of arriving at a clear and fair conclusion as to the merits of this case has been much increased by the incomplete form in which the minutes of the Executive Council have been prepared and submitted for the decision of the Secretary of State. The charges are not specified in the minutes, and one charge (8a) cannot easily be identified in any of the voluminous printed papers attached to them. Mr. Cockburn Stewart, also, made a lengthy spoken defence before the Council, in which, I am told, he boldly accused the Governor to his face of malignant hostility and persecution in consequence of the attitude he (Mr. Cockburn Stewart) had taken in the Broome affair. His defence is disposed of in the minutes of the Executive Council in the few following words :—

"The Governor informed Mr. Stewart that he is at liberty to address the Council on his case, as well as Mr. Antelme, if he chooses to do so.

"Mr. Stewart addresses the Council in his defence.

"On Mr. Stewart's withdrawal, the Council proceeded to discuss the charges one by one."

50. On reviewing the whole of this case, after perusing the mass of printed and manuscript matter on record in connexion with it, it appears to me that Mr. Cockburn Stewart has been guilty of carelessness and irregularity in the transaction of financial business, but that he has not been guilty of anything criminal or dishonest. He was told by the Secretary of State, in October 1885, that he "must return to Mauritius and "submit himself to an inquiry before the Executive Council into those charges against "him which had not already been disposed of, unless he preferred to resign his office." He elected to return and stand his trial. A majority of the Executive Council has decided that his conduct, although blameable, does not call for suspension. Looking, then, to the lengthened time over which the inquiry into this case has extended, to the "moral torture "

to which, according to the sworn evidence of an Acting Judge of the Supreme Court, Mr. Cockburn Stewart has during that long period been exposed, and to the fact that he was under interdiction, on half-pay, for more than five months, from the date of his return to the Colony to the date of his trial, I think he was sufficiently punished for the acts of carelessness and irregularity proved against him, and that the verdict of the majority should have been accepted.

51. I am of opinion that Mr. Cockburn Stewart should now be allowed to return to his duty, with a warning to be more careful for the future. He should, I think, receive his full pay, not only from the date of his acquittal by the Executive Council on the 9th August last, but also from the 2nd July, beyond which, as I have stated, the delay in the trial has not been satisfactorily accounted for. His half-pay for the remainder of the period of his interdiction, viz., from the 4th March to the 2nd July, I consider should be forfeited as a punishment for his negligence.

52. I must add, that I believe the majority of the English officials and residents in Mauritius share the opinion expressed to the Secretary of State by Mr. Clifford Lloyd as regards Mr. Cockburn Stewart's case, namely, "that the Governor has shown much malignity in his persecution of this unfortunate officer," and I think myself there are grounds for this conclusion.

4. The Memorial addressed to the Secretary of State by Five of the elected Members of the Council of Government.

53. On the 12th April 1886, Messrs. Beaugeard, De Coriolis, C. Antelme, and Planel, the elected members for the districts of Port Louis, Plaines Wilhems, and Pamplemousser, addressed a memorial† to Earl Granville, suggesting the appointment of

↑ No. 7.

• Mr. Clifford Lloyd to Secretary of State, August 26, 1886, paragraph 6. Not printed.

0 2