HL Deb 29 July 1887 vol 318 cc495-511
THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN,

in rising to call attention to the Despatch upon the Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the Colony of Mauritius, and to move for Papers, said: The Despatch to which I desire to call the attention of the House has been before your Lordships for a fortnight; and I wish to say that that Despatch is in itself, in many respects, a remarkable document. However this may be, there is no question whatever that it relates to a most exceptional, painful, and, I think I may say, almost unprecedented state of things. Under these circumstances, and considering that there are many among your Lordships who have occupied the position of Secretary of State for the Colonies, I fully thought that some one among your Lordships more capable of dealing with the question than I, would have taken it up; but as such is not the case, and it is getting late in the Session, I think it is a duty to call attention myself to the matter of this Despatch. The Despatch purports to give reasons why Sir John Pope Hennessy was reinstated in the Government of the Colony of Mauritius. The Secretary of State says in his Despatch— I am now in a position to state the conclusion at which I have arrived in this painful and difficult case, and the grounds upon which I have decided, though not without considerable hesitation, that sufficient cause has not been shown to justify the removal of Sir John Pope Hennessy from the office of Governor of Mauritius. I may say at once that I do not wish to call in question the wisdom or unwisdom of the decision at which the Secretary of State has arrived. You have not sufficient documents before you to arrive at a decision upon that point. What I wish to point out is the entire inadequacy of this Despatch, and I wish to show your Lordships that the Despatch gave no reasons whatever why Sir John Pope Hennessy should be reinstated as Governor; but, on the other hand, it gave a great many reasons why Sir John Pope Hennessy should have been removed from his Governorship. I will point out to your Lordships a significant sentence in which the Secretary of State says that he has arrived at his decision with considerable hesitation. If this were a question of the character of an individual it would be perfectly right that the individual should receive the benefit of the doubt. But this is a question affecting the welfare of one of Her Majesty's Colonies, and I consider that if the Secretary of State only arrived at his decision "after considerable hesitation," that fact is in itself almost sufficient ground for assuming that that decision is not a wise one. I wish your Lordships to consider the exceptional character of this case. Some time ago the Secretary of State for the Colonies— not the present Secretary of State—no doubt acting upon sufficient primâ facia evidence, considered it to be his duty to advise Her Majesty to issue a Commission empowering Sir Hercules Robinson, the Governor of the Cape, to proceed to the Mauritius to inquire into the state of affairs in that Colony, and I would also point out that by this Commission the Governor of the Cape was empowered to suspend the Governor of the Mauritius if he thought it necessary. It is impossible to find a man better qualified by his experience and position for such a difficult and complicated task than Sir Hercules Robinson. He has been engaged before in delicate work. He has been employed at the Fiji Islands, and he has also held the position of Governor of New Zealand and New South Wales, and had discharged most delicate duties as Governor of the Cape and South Africa. Wherever, therefore, it requires the exercise of the greatest judgment to enable a man to fulfil his duties with satisfaction, I wish to say that no man could be found more capable to carry out those duties. Sir Hercules Robinson proceeded with his mission to the Mauritius and found the state of affairs there so bad that it was necessary to suspend the Governor, and he did so. That is all that I or the public know about the matter. Under these circumstances considering the exceptional character of the conditions that Sir Hercules Robinson found to exist in the Mauritius, the state of things must have been exceedingly grave for him to take upon himself the very grave step of suspending the Governor of that Colony, and I maintain that if the decision to reinstate the Governor has been arrived at after considerable hesitation, that is almost sufficient to prove that it would have been better had a different decision been arrived at. What I complain of in this Despatch, is the exceedingly contradictory character of it. It says one thing in one paragraph and denies it in the next paragraph, or in another portion of the same paragraph. I will call your Lordships' attention to the fourth and fifth paragraphs. In the fourth the Secretary of State says— It is now apparent that the Royal Commissioner would have done well to insist upon the regular attendance of Sir John Pope Hennessy during the examination of the witnesses, and upon his cross-examining them then and there. Much of the difficulty in deciding this case would thus have been removed; and it appears to me that such a course would have been more fair and just to all parties concerned. I think that is a sufficient reason for the decision of the Secretary of State has arrived at, that Sir John Pope Hennessy ought to have been examined on the spot; but in the very next paragraph the Secretary of State said— But I am bound to say that, looking to the length of time that was given to the inquiry, to the nature of much of the evidence that was brought forward, largely consisting as it did of hearsay evidence and belief; and, lastly, to the defence which has been stated by Sir John Pope Hennessy in this country, I am satisfied that no material evidence has beeen excluded. We have got to do justice and what is right to a very important Colony, and I maintain that if the Secretary of State says that no material evidence was excluded it does not matter whether Sir John Pope Hennessy was examined on the spot or not. But in connection with this I should like to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the Royal Commisssioner, Sir Hercules Robinson, should have insisted upon the attendance of Sir John Pope Hennessy during the examination. I do not know whether Sir John Pope Hennessy was there, or never was examined. I do not know whether his evidence was insisted upon; but I should like to have the matter cleared up. In the 5th paragraph a strong point is made of the fact that Sir John Pope Hennessy was not examined on the spot. Clearly, some three months ago, there must have been some mistake made. In the 1st paragraph the Secretary of State declares that no material evidence was excluded. If you look through the Despatch, I think you will see the same contradictory character prevails throughout. I will ask your Lordships to look at the 11th paragraph. The Secretary of State there declares— Thirdly, as to Mr. Cockburn Stewart's case, I concur generally in the conclusions arrived at by Sir Hercules Robinson in his Report, although I feel bound to say that the papers before me do not establish the conclusion which he formed on the spot—viz., that there are grounds for the opinion of the majority of the English officials in the Colony that, as stated by Mr. Clifford Lloyd, the Governor 'showed much malignity in his persecution of this unfortunate officer.' I cannot understand how it is possible to concur generally in the decision arrived at with respect to Mr. Clifford Lloyd, and, at the same time, to state— "That the papers before me do not sufficiently establish the conclusions which were formed on the spot." The two circumstances appear to me to be absolutely contradictory one of the other. Your Lordships will see the same thing in paragraphs 16 and 17. In paragraph 16 it is stated— Some of those instances Sir John Pope Hennessy has explained away in his defence, and some are, I think, to be attributed more to his desire to promote men who generally supported him in the unhappy differences which undoubtedly existed in the Colony than to the special policy under consideration. Upon the whole, I am of opinion that by his want of judgment Sir John Pope Hennessy injured the cause which he had at heart, and created a not unnatural discontent and hostility, but that there is not such evidence before me of personal injustice in the distribution of patronage as would justify me in concluding that he cannot retain the office of Governor. I must ask your Lordships how it is possible that a gentleman receiving support in unhappy differences should at the same time as Governor not be guilty of perpetrating injustice in the distribution of patronage. Turning to the next paragraph, you will see it stated in paragraph 17— Nor, upon the whole, do I think that the charge of 'persecuting' the British officials as a class in the offices which they hold, has been established; but as regards the general charge of undue interference brought against him, I cannot shut my eyes to the cases of Bishop Scarisbrick and of the stipendiary magistrates, where his interference was vexatious and unjustifiable and called down upon him the well-deserved censure of two Secretaries of State. It seems to me that here also a contradiction is contained in two portions of the same paragraph. It seems to me hopeless to attempt to arrive at a definite conclusion on what is stated in this paragraph. I would like to see what result is arrived at. I find this stated in the 22nd paragraph, where it is declared— I do not find any overt act of misconduct, such as would render it necessary to remove the Governor from office. There the Secretary of State says the Governor has not been guilty of any overt act of misconduct which would render it impossible for him to continue in office. When I look through the Despatch I cannot find a single word in justification of them. I find a great deal which renders it impossible to understand how it is, from the facts mentioned in this Despatch, the Secretary of State arrived at the conclusion which I have just read out. The only thing in favour of Sir John Pope Hennessy is that in the 23rd paragraph, in which the Secretary of State says that the charges against him in respect of the condition of the finances of the Colony and the alleged increase of crime owing to his interference have broken down. I would call your attention to some of the facts which are mentioned in the Despatch. I would ask you to look at the 8th paragraph, where the Secretary of State distinctly says, "I cannot acquit Sir John Pope Hennessy of a want of temper and jugdment." Now, if there is one thing more necessary than another for a man who has to exercise the functions of Royalty as Governor of a Colony, it is to hold the balance conscientiously and evenly in the midst of great difficulties—if there is a quality more necessary than another in such a place it is the possession of temper and of judgment, whereas the Secretary of State distinctly says that these great qualities were not possessed by Sir John Pope Hennessy. Your Lordships will find in the 15th paragraph, speaking of the new policy which had been inaugurated in the Mauritius, the Secretary of State said— There was no sufficient ground for proclaiming a now departure in a manner calculated to arouse, as it undoubtedly did arouse, grave and general apprehensions among the civil officers not connected with the island by family ties that they would no longer receive fair and impartial treatment. That appears to be rather a serious charge to bring against a Governor that his policy was calculated to arouse grave and general apprehension among civil officers that they would no longer receive fair and impartial treatment. The next paragraph I have already read to your Lordships—the 16th paragraph—in which it states that Sir John Pope Hennessy had promoted men into office because they supported him in his policy and had supported him in the unhappy differences which existed in the Colony. The 17th paragraph I have also read to your Lordships in which it is stated that the interference of the Stipendiary Magistrate was vexatious and unjustifiable. I will only allude to one other paragraph and that is No. 21, and I will ask your Lordships to pay attention to this paragraph, because there the Secretary of State, summing up the whole matter, says— The conclusion in respect of these charges, at which I have arrived, after studying the evidence of which the general character is well described by Sir Hercules Robinson in the 95th and 97th paragraphs of his Report, is that the Governor, in carrying out his policy, which was highly approved of by part of the inhabitants, but viewed with suspicion by another part, including the English and official element, identified himself too much with the party that supported his view, and became a partisan rather than an impartial Governor holding the balance evenly between all parties. It is impossible to make a graver charge than that against the Governor of a Colony, that he became a partizan and did not hold the balance evenly between all parties. The Governor, in taking the official oath, said— I … do swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Victoria in the office of … and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this colony without fear or favour, affection, or ill-will. I maintain, therefore, that if the Secretary of State is correct in bringing these charges against the Governor of being a partizan and not holding the balance evenly between all parties, that the Governor is unfit to retain office. But these are the reasons given for not depriving the Governor of his position and for re-instating him in his office, and I must say that more extraordinary reasons than these I cannot conceive. The Secretary of State said that these things had created a great want of confidence in the government of the Mauritius and materially affected the peace and good government of the Colony. The Governor who should be impartial had become a partizan and his conduct in other respects materially affected the peace and good government of the Colony, and these were the reasons which are stated to justify his going back and being reinstated as Governor of the Mauritius. I can only say that they appear to me to be most extraordinary reasons—even so extraordinary that I am almost forced to believe that this Despatch must have been practically laid upon the Table of the House by mistake. It appears to me as if it was in the nature of a Memorandum giving all the reasons that could be found why Sir John Pope Hennessy should not be sent back to the Mauritius, and that the reason why he was sent back to the Mauritius was that some mistake was made, and the wrong opinion has been prepared and given to Parliament. I have nothing to say against the decision. It may be perfectly right. All I can say is that if we have nothing but this Despatch to go on I do not agree in the wisdom or the justice of the decision which the Secretary of State has arrived at. I am bound to say that it is a sort of verdict of "Not Guilty; but do not do it again, because the Despatch gives a sort of advice to Sir John Pope Hennessy that he should go back again, but he must not do these things again or they would not be looked over. The Colonial Office admitted that they had not sufficient primâ facie evidence before them. They had no evidence to show that Sir Hercules Robinson had been mistaken, or to show that they wore just in reinstating Sir John Pope Hennessy without giving any reason at all. But what I object to is the reinstating of him in such a grave state of things for the reasons which are mentioned in the Despatch to which I have ventured to call your Lordships' attention. It must be patent to your Lordships that there is nothing but this Despatch before the country. The reasons which it gives—the dangerous and erroneous reasons—are sure to raise in men's minds very erroneous impressions. Without any prejudice to Sir John Pope Hennessy, I may fairly say that the political views of the Colonial Governor and his antecedents altogether tend themselves to such erroneous impressions. I can imagine nothing more disastrous than that the public should suppose that in a case of this kind affecting the welfare of a colony, that any consideration of Party polities or political convenience at home could possibly influence the Government. If there is no evidence before us but what is contained in this Despatch, they reinstated Sir John Pope Hennessy for political convenience and Party considerations. Under those circumstances, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will give us some more information on this subject. The Papers which I wish for are the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson, the evidence and the statement that Sir John Pope Hennessy has made over here, and I trust sincerely that those Papers will be laid on the Table of the House, and I hope they are Papers that may throw light upon the subject, and enable us to understand the real reason which induced the Government to restore the Governorship in so extraordinary a manner.

Moved, "That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty for Papers relating to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the affairs of the Colony of Mauritius."—(The Earl of Dunraven.)

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he feared that he might lay himself open to the accusation of vanity; but he could not refrain from saying that he believed the only part of this transaction which was not open to some criticism was that part in which, he had been concerned. He thought that the selection of Mr. Clifford Lloyd for an important post in the Mauritius was unfortunate. Mr. Lloyd was undoubtedly a most able and energetic man, whoso claims upon the Government for an appointment were very strong. But in the conscientious discharge of his duties in Ireland Mr. Lloyd came into accentuated conflict with the Roman Catholics in that country, and afterwards, in Egypt, he came into conflict with the French. The appointment of Mr. Lloyd to a high office in the Mauritius, where the majority of the White inhabitants were Roman Catholics, was therefore, as he had said, unfortunate. When in Office he had received a Memorial upon this subject, suggesting that there should be an inquiry; and he had replied that he must hear the answer of Sir Hercules Robinson before deciding whether an inquiry ought to take place or not. The same view, however, was not taken by his Successor, and an inquiry was ordered. There was no man in whom he would repose more confidence than in Sir Hercules Robinson, an able and experienced man, and one of the best of our Governors. But he was not sure that it was judicious to select one Governor to conduct an inquiry into the practices of an official of equal rank, especially as Sir Hercules Robinson was overwhelmed with work. When the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson reached this country there were four courses open to the Government. The first was to endorse the decision of Sir Hercules Robinson; and the second to reject it. A third course was to decide that Sir John Pope Hennessy had done nothing to justify his suspension; but that there was such irritation and excitement among the different parties that it was undesirable that the Governor should return, and that another equal or higher post should be found for him. The fourth and worse course was that which had been followed—namely, to send this Governor back, and, at the same time, to publish a Despatch which was certainly most damaging in character. It was not a transaction carried out with the usual judgment of the Secretary of State.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

rose in opposition to the speech and the Motion of the noble Earl (the Earl of Dunraven), on the ground that it was against the welfare of the Colony. Some time ago, before this matter had been decided, he had road a despatch of Sir John Pope Hennessey's, printed in a Calcutta newspaper, which threw some light upon the subject. After reading it, he had gone to one of the Under Secretaries at the Colonial Office, and had mentioned some facts which he had been aware of many years ago, and which it would not be for the public interest for him to mention; and on those grounds he had entreated his friend in the Colonial Office to support Sir John Pope Hennessey. He had no personal interest in Sir John Pope Hennessey, and had never seen him. He thought that a good deal of the noble Earl's speech was literary criticism, and that he had been hypercritical. The noble Earl had said that Sir Hercules Robinson was an official of great importance, and the Secretary of State, or whoever drafted the despatch, had to consult the feelings of Sir Hercules Robinson as well as those of Sir John Pope Hennessey.

LORD BRABOURNE

said, that their Lordships were not in a position to form an opinion upon the merits of the case, because they had not the necessary Papers before them. He had known Sir John Pope Hennessy for many years, and believed him to be a man of great ability and energy. He knew that there had been complaints in other Colonies against Sir John Pope Hennessy; but they had boon complaints based upon his alleged great partiality for the Native populations. Those complaints, at any rate, pointed to a fault on the right side, if any fault there were. As to the particular case now before the House, he held that there were two parties who had a right to complain. The one was Sir John Pope Hennessy himself, and the other the Colony of Mauritius. He could conceive no greater misfortune for a Colony than, that the reinstatement of a Governor against whom grave charges had been brought should be accompanied by the publication of a document which would increase the dissatisfaction which was already felt, and could not fail to grievously increase the difficulties of his government. It was preposterous to state, as was stated in one paragraph of this Despatch, that Sir John Pope Hennessy had done things "a repetition of which would necessitate his removal from the Governorship," to brand him with having "acted as a partizan," and with other faults, and to parade all this before the public in Great Britain and in Mauritius in the very Despatch which reinstated him in his position as Governor. If the Secretary of State had come to the conclusion that Sir John Pope Hennessy ought to be reinstated, the proper course would have been to address any remarks which he had to make by way of caution to Sir John Pope Hennessy privately. He felt nothing but grief and diappointment that such a despatch should have come from the Secretary of State. The fact was that the Colonial Secretary, being a man of amiable character, tried to please everybody, and, as usual in such eases, bad satisfied nobody. He tried to propitiate the accusers of the Governor and to satisfy Sir Hercules Robinson, and in this attempt he had published a Despatch which he (Lord Brabourne) would in one sentence describe as one which injured Sir John Pope Hennessy, which greatly injured the Colony of Mauritius, and which set a lamentable precedent of the treatment which a Colonial Governor might receive at the hands of the Secretary of the Colonies.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of ONSLOW),

said, that he was not surprised, considering the interest shown by the public, that the question had been raised. The case was a very peculiar one, for which there was no precedent. The Secretary of State was called upon to pronounce an opinion in a quasi-judicial capacity on a case which had been in part only heard in Mauritius, where the Commissioner had not heard the case of the Lieutenant Governor, the principal official who had brought charges against the Governor, nor the defence of the Governor himself. He felt some difficulty in explaining to the House the exact reasons which led the Secretary of State to come to this conclusion, because he had not had the advantage which had been enjoyed by the Secretary of State of hearing Sir John Pope Hennessy in his own defence for seven days. There had been occasions on which Colonial Governors had been recalled on the sole responsibility of the Secretary of State. But this was the first time that an inquiry had been held partly by Commission and partly by the Secretary of State. The point was then this. Certain distinct, specific and grave charges were formally made against Sir John Pope Hennessy by five elected Members of the Council of Government, the most serious of which were what were described as overt acts—namely, (1) mal administration of the finances of the Colony; (2) that his philanthropic ideas had relaxed prison discipline and caused a large increase of crime. These charges were not proved against him by the Commission, nor established to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State. If the Commission had reported, or the Secretary of State had considered that these charges were substantiated, it would have been his duty to advise Her Majesty to remove Sir John Pope Hennessy. The Royal Commission was appointed, and Sir Hercules Robinson, who had had an experience of more than 30 years as a Colonial Governor, consented to add to his already onerous duties of High Commissioner in South Africa, Governor of the Capo of Good Hope and of British Bechuanaland, the duties of Her Majesty's Commissioner to inquire into the affairs of Mauritius. He desired to express the satisfaction of Her Majesty's Government and their gratitude to Sir Hercules Robinson for his consent to undertake this important service, as the question at issue involved personal considerations of a grave and complicated character, with which he was peculiarly well qualified to deal; while his great administrative experience and tried ability could not fail to secure the fullest confidence in the important task which thus devolved upon him. He would also acknowledge the obligation under which the Government lay to Mr. Round, who accepted a temporary appointment of secretary to the Commission at considerable personal inconvenience. The task was a painful and dis- agreeable one, and was performed with the greatest impartiality; and in the conclusions arrived at, with the exception of one or two very minor points, the Secretary of State substantially agreed. The noble Earl had contended that, while concurring in the Report, the Secretary of State did not carry out its recommendations. In the second paragraph of his Despatch the Secretary of State expressed his entire agreement in the exercise, by Sir Hercules Robinson, of the authority vested in him at the course best calculated to secure peace and order in the Colony. The Secretary of State then telegraphed to Sir John Pope Hennessy to come to England at once, to give explanations with reference to Sir Hercules Robinson's Report. The object of that was partly that the Secretary of State considered it undesirable that a suspended Governor should remain in the Colony, and partly to hear his verbal defence, which lasted seven days. It might be said that in an inquiry of this kind, partaking as it did of an almost judicial character, the Secretary of State was not justified in acting without legal advice. The Secretary of State influenced by this consideration, had called to his assistance the Solicitor General for Scotland, who arrived at the same conclusion as the Secretary of State, without consultation—namely, that on the evidence the charges were not proved. His noble Friend had objected to the expression that this decision had not been arrived at without "considerable hesitation." It was an important decision, and, considering how voluminous the evidence was and now conflicting it was one which no one ought to have arrived at without "considerable hesitation." The evidence was by no means of the overwhelming character which the noble Lord attributed to it. Of the 80 witnesses, 36 were in favour of the Governor and 36 were against him, while eight were neutral. The noble Earl then attacked the Despatch, which he tore into pieces, and quoted a number of paragraphs which he said would have justified the removal of Sir John Pope Hennessy; but he did not read other passages which justified the decision actually arrived at. The view of the Secretary of State fully agreed with that of the noble Lord (Lord Brabourne). Upon the two serious charges the Secretary of State completely acquitted Sir John Pope Hennessy. The charges of maladministration, and the alleged increase of crime, in consequence of the remission of sentences, had entirely broken down. There were no fewer than 662 remissions; but of these cases 601 had been previously recommended for remission. Then the Secretary of State, in Paragraph 17, maintained that the charge of persecuting British officers was not established. Now, having disposed of the serious allegations, what did the others amount to? They amounted to—first, want of temper and judgment; secondly, a neglect to call upon Mr. Ferguson for an explanation before writing to the Secretary of State to censure him; thirdly, ostentatious proclamation of a policy which he had a perfect right to pursue; fourthly, unjustifiable interference with the functions of the Bishop and the stipendiary—this was most serious, and, if repeated, would involve the Governor's recall; and, fifthly, that the Governor identified himself too closely with the party which supported his view. Were these causes sufficient to justify the rare course of advising Her Majesty to recall Sir John Pope Hennessy? In his opinion they were not. The noble Earl said that Sir John Pope Hennessy had been guilty of previous misconduct. That might be true; but decisions of former Secretaries of State should have no more weight than previous convictions against criminals on trial, and the present Secretary of State was not called upon to inquire into anything which occurred previous to Sir John Pope Hennessy's appointment to the Governorship of Mauritius. Then it had been said that there were some political considerations at home which had influenced the Secretary of State. He desired emphatically to deny the correctness of that statement, and to assert that the Secretary of State was not swayed in any way by such political considerations. The mere fact that several Secretaries of State had promoted Sir John Pope Hennessy showed that they did not think him incapable of governing. The noble Earl in his Motion asked that the Government should lay on the Table some further Papers in connection with this matter. There were, however, grave reasons why this should not be done. In the first place, there was no imputation whatever cast upon the conduct or the decision of Sir Hercules Robinson. The Secretary of State had completely and entirely exonerated him, and he was glad to hear the remarks which had fallen from every noble Lord who had spoken in this debate as to Sir Hercules Robinson's impartiality and integrity. Were this Otherwise it would be only fair to Sir Hercules, to lay the Papers on the Table. The Papers on this subject were extremely voluminous. If the Government gave the Report of Sir Hercules Robinson it would be necessary also to lay before Parliament all the evidence which was taken before the Commissioner arrived at his conclusions. There was much of that evidence which was very irrelevant; and it would then be necessary that the further explanations to be given upon that evidence should also be laid before Parliament. Again, it would be necessary to lay before Parliament the whole of Mr. Clifford Lloyd's defence, with the charges brought by him against the Governor and the Governor's countercharges against him. Moreover, it would be necessary to lay upon the Table all the minutes of the long seven days which the Secretary of State gave to the vivâ voce hearing of the defence of Sir John Pope Hennessy. The Government hoped in sending Sir John Pope Hennessy back to the Mauritius to restore in some measure peace and good government to the colony, but that would be impossible if this flood of charge and counter-charge, recrimination and retort, was to be let loose in the colony to greet the Governor on his return. Therefore he thought their Lordships would agree with him that it was not advisable to lay all the Papers on the Table. It was impossible to exercise the usual discretion of a Secretary of State to remove a Governor after charges had been made and an inquiry ordered to prove or disprove them. The charges, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, were disproved, and two alternatives alone remained—either to remove Sir John Pope Hennessy to another colony or to let him return to the Mauritius. Governorships such as that of the Mauritius did not fall vacant every day, and Sir John Pope Hennessy might have had to wait a long time. The Government believed that the course which had been adopted was the best. Sir John Pope Hennessy had received a warning which no man could disregard. He had been warned of the absolute necessity of maintaining a strict impartiality; of giving a careful consideration to the claims and interests of all persons, whether opposed to his policy or advocating it; of working cordially with those who held office under him, and of subordinating his own personal views, religious or political, to the general good of the Colony. He trusted that Sir John Pope Hennessy would bear carefully in mind those recommendations; but he could not conceal from their Lordships that should he fail to justify the decision of the Secretary of State, and to sustain his own contention that he could and would govern impartially and without bias towards race and creed, a grave question would arise as to whether it would not be expedient, in the interests of the Colony, without the necessity for further inquiry, to substitute some other Governor for Sir John Pope Hennessy. He trusted that no such necessity would ever arise, and that the undoubted energy, ability, and the varied experience of Sir John Pope Hennessy might yet continue to render good and useful service to Her Majesty and to Her Colonial Empire.

THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN

said, he deeply regretted to find that Her Majesty's Government were not going to lay additional Papers on the subject before Parliament.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

said, he did not share in the noble Earl's regret. It appeared to him that the position of Sir John Pope Hennessy on returning to the Mauritius would, in the circumstances, be an extremely difficult one. And if the additional Papers corroborated the passages to which attention had been called in this Despatch, they would increase his difficulty in properly fulfilling his duties in the Colony. There was a phrase which spoke of "damning with faint praise," and any case of damnation with fainter praise than was afforded by this Despatch he thought their Lordships would find it very difficult to discover. Her Majesty's Government had determined to send Sir John Pope Hennessy back with a Despatch hanging round his neck, which placed his conduct before the inhabitants of the Colony in a light which could not be considered otherwise than unfavourable. This discussion was a very painful one, and he did not see how further Papers would improve matters. Those which had already been laid on the Table were sufficiently condemnatory, and further Papers would only increase the difficulty.

THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

said, it was to be regretted that the evidence taken at the inquiry was taken in English, as very few people in the Island were able to speak or understand English properly. If, as had been stated, Sir John Hennessy's policy was— The Mauritius for the Mauritians, those who were most opposed to him would probably be found among the English-speaking part of the population, while his friends and defenders were practically prevented from giving evidence in his favour. It was also much to be regretted that Sir Hercules Robinson had taken the extreme step of suspending the Governor, without waiting to hear his defence, on what was ex parte evidence given in his absence. In conclusion, he called attention to the words of the majority of the unofficial Members of the Council, which there was every reason to believe expressed the views of the great mass of the people of Mauritius— Whatever may have been said to the contrary by a minority actuated by divers motives which it is useless to explain here, our Governor Sir John Pope Hennessy has done much for the good of the Colony during the three past years of his administration; by his kind, just and liberal policy he has gained the sympathy of the vast majority of the inhabitants of this Island, and he has done more than any of our previous Governors to endear to the Mauritians the ties which unite this Colony to the Empire.

On Question? Resolved in the negative.