PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
882
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
No 138, Sept. 21.
36
(1.) The provision of a return passage to India after, say, ten years' residence,” should the immigrant desire it.
(2.) More efficient inspection.
(3.) The payment of wages at regular and shorter fixed periods.
(4.) The prohibition of re-engagements before the previous engagement has expired.
(5.) Power in the Executive to cancel engagements, and withhold the transmission of requisitions to India.
(6.) Magistrates should be prohibited from having any interest in the sugar estates.
26. I would venture to suggest, as not unworthy of your Lordship's consideration, whether these objects might not be obtained by the issue of an Order in Council appli- cable to all the coolic-importing colonies. Where these provisions are already law their enactment in this form could excite no objection, whilst it would cause less irritation in Mauritius were the measure a general one than if confined to that island, and if it emanated from the Crown rather than from any local authority. It is, moreover, not undesirable to introduce some uniformity into the regulations on this subject--a uniformity which can only be established by the direct action of the Imperial Government.
27. As regards more efficient inspection, I have already taken steps which will, I hope, lead to the adoption by the Council of Government of a measure tending to secure this object. On all the other points I have mentioned it would, I fear, be difficult to obtain their concurrence.
I have, &c. (Signed)
Gentlemen,
No. 15.
ARTHUR GORDON.
Colonial Office to the Emigration Commissioners.
Downing Street, October 28, 1871. WITH reference to your letter dated the 24th October, I am directed by the Earl of Kimberley to transmit to you a copy of a further despatch from Governor Sir A. Gordon, respecting the condition of Indian immigrant labourers in the island of Mauritius.
As it may be convenient to you to embody any observations you may wish to offer on this despatch in the Report forwarded by you on the 24th instant, I am to return that letter to you in original.
Sir,
I am, &c.
(Signed)
No. 16.
R. G. W. ПERBERT.
Emigration Commissioner to Colonial Office.—(Received November 9.)
Emigration Board, November 8, 1871.
I IIAVE to acknowledge your letter of 13th and 28th ultimo, enclosing copies of despatches which have passed between the Secretary of State and the Governor of Mauritius on the condition of Indian immigrants in that Colony. In these despatches, especially in the two last, Bir A. Gordon draws a contrast between the law in respect to Indian immigrants in Mauritius and in the West Indian Colonies, to show that their position in the former is much less favourable than in the latter.
1. Bir A. Gordon states that under the existing law and practice the Governor of Mauritius is obliged to forward to the Emigration Agent in India whatever requsitions are sent in by Planters, provided only security is given for payment of the expenses, that he has no power to refuse emigrants to an estate however great the mortality on it may have been, or however flagrant the neglect with which emigrants may have been treated, and that cases have come to his knowledge in which proprietors who have been guilty of conduct towards their labourers, which in the West Indies would more than have precluded them from any fresh allotment, have, nevertheless, in Mauritius insisted on compliance with their requisitions which the Governor had no power to refuse.
37
There can be no doubt that a system which admits of such abuses, and deprives the Executive Government of one of its most important functions as regards the introduction of immigrants, requires immediate alteration. But it is impossible not to feel surprise, considering that the system has been in operation since the passing of the Ordinance No. 12 of 1855, repealed in 1861, that the abuses which Sir A. Gordon describes as resulting from it should not have been brought to the notice of the Secretary of State
before this.
2. The Governor observes that, contrary to the practice in the West Indies, requisitions for emigrants may be sent in at any time of the year. This is naturally the case, as emigrants may be despatched from India to Mauritius at any time of the year. It is not stated that any practical inconvenience results from it.
3. He points out that the engagements made in India for Mauritius are for particular estates, whereas in the West Indies the allotment to estates is made by the Government authorities. The engagements to particular estates in Mauritius was adopted in consequence of the frauds perpetrated by Sirdars employed by the planters, and was the almost necessary complement to the system which allowed planters to employ their own recruiters in India. Upon this subject I would beg to refer to Governor Stevenson's despatch of 30th January, 1838, and to a Report from this Board of 17th May following.
4. The Governor points out that while in the West Indies the rationing of immigrants is allowed for a limited period only, differing in different Colonies, in Mauritius immigrants receive rations as a part of their wages during the whole of their first and any subsequent indenture. He adds that the Government scale of wages varies from about 347. a day in the first year to about 5d. a day in the fifth year, the rations in addition being worth about 2d. a day more.
The practice of rationing immigrants in Mauritius dates from the commencement of the immigration in 1836-37. It would be difficult at this date, and of little use, to endeavour to trace the reasons which led the Government of that day and the East India Directors to sanction in Mauritius a mode of paying for immigrant labour which they objected to in the West Indies. In the latter the prohibition to pay wages in rations has latterly been relaxed with great advantage to the health of immigrants. In Mauritius we are not aware that this mode of paying the immigrant has led to complaint, although it seems unreasonable to extend it beyond the period at which the immigrant may be considered capable of providing equally well for himself. The number of immigrants who after going back to India return to Mauritius may be taken to show that it is not felt by them as a grievance. The scale of Government wages is put very low by Sir A. Gordon, especially when it is considered that the Regulations issued by Sir II. Barkly under Ordinance No. 4 of 1861 fix the wages to be paid to vagrants employed on public works under punishment at 4d. a day, in addition to ration. I presume that care is taken that the amount of wages and rations is correctly stated to intending emigrants in India. If so, it is remarkable that hitherto there has been much less difficulty in procuring emigrants for Mauritius than for the West Indies, where the scale of wages is higher. Women are not indentured in Mauritius, and do not therefore receive rations. It is not, I presume, intended to be understood that they have no means of subsistence beyond the rations and wages of men with whom they live. The Ordinance No. 16 of 1802, provides (section 11) for the employment of women under annual contracts in such light kind of labour as they are fitted for. Under this law they no doubt engage in service for which they receive independent
wages.
5. The system under which immigrants are paid is, the Governor says, open to much objection. Wages are calculated by the month, not by the day or week, and are paid only monthly. There is no process for recovering them immediately they fall into arrcar; but where they have been unpaid for three months, "on the magistrate awarding payment of such wages, the servant shall be at liberty to claim the dissolution of his contract."
Practically, therefore, four months clapse before an emmigrant can sue for his wages; and as, when judgment has been obtained, the magistrate may grant "a reasonable delay" for payment of the amount, the time may be much longer. The Governor, in his despatch of the 21st September, to show how easily under this system immigrants may lose their wages, quotes an instance in which judgment for 9,106 dollars (1,8971. 1s. 8d.), having been obtained against Mr. Carson in 1861, nothing was paid till 1867, when only 1,900 dollars (4061. 6s. 8d.) was recovered, and Mr. Carson, having passed through the Bankruptcy Court, the balance, amounting to 7,164 dollars (1,488/. 158.), was lost to the inaniigrants. As the Governor justly observes, such an occurrence would have been impossible if wages had been paid every week or every
[160]
L