TUTTI
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
CO
Reference -
882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
38
fortnight. There is the further evil that, when a long delay is allowed to elapse before the matter is brought to a judgment, there is a difficulty, amounting almost to impossi- bility, in deciding between conflicting assertions.
6. One motive, however, for the retention of their labourers' wages by employers, is said to be the power it gives the latter of coercing their labourers into reindenture. This is simply an additional evil. Sir A. Gordon suggests that, in order to promote the independence of the labourer, reindentures, which are now entered into six months before the expiration of the preceding indenture, should not be allowed till the previous indenture has terminated, and that the papers and certificate of discharge should be given into the hands of the immigrant. I presume also that, in accordance with the recommendation of the British Guiana Commission, no reindenture should be for a longer period than twelve months. I would also submit that, before reindentures are passed, the employer should be required to show that he had paid all wages due to the inumigrants who reindenture to him.
;
7. The Mauritius law (Ordinance 31 of 1867) enacts that, when it shall be proved "to the satisfaction of the Stipendiary Magistrate of the district that the lodging of any labourer is insufficient, unhealthy, or otherwise unfit to be inhabited by such labourer," the magistrate shall require the employer to repair it within a specified time, and in the interim to pay the labourer 3d. a-day lodging-money. In case of non- compliance, the employer is liable to a fine not exceeding 5l., and the cancellation of the labourer's indenture. Sir A. Gordon objects that the law thus leaves to the opinions of different magistrates the determination of what constitutes fitness for habitation and, in his despatch of the 21st September, he describes the houses as generally low, \\small, ill-built, and badly ventilated. On the other hand, it may be objected that it would be almost impossible to insert in the law a definition which would meet all cases, while every case that did not come within the definition would be absolutely excluded. It seems better under such circumstances to trust to the discretion of the administrator, than to the foresight of the framer, of the law. But, in the present instance, the law itself provides a remedy for the indistinctness to which the Governor objects, as the 75th section enables the Governor, with the consent of the Executive Council, to make regulations for carrying out the provisions of the Ordinance.
8. The Governor states that the hospital accommodation is insufficient, consisting generally of only one room; that the requirements of the law are only colourably observed; and that it may be assumed, from a Return, which he quotes, of Deaths out of Hospital, that very few of the sick are, in fact, treated in the hospital. He supports this view by a passage of a Report by Dr. Desjardine, one of the Government Inspectors, from which it appears that, according to a legal opinion of the Substitute Procureur- General, the law is sufficiently complied with, if there is a hospital on the estate, whether it is used or not. Even on one of the Government estates which the Governor visited, the hospital, he says, was "a neglected, empty building" which had not been used for more than a year. It is difficult to reconcile these statements with the notices of hospitals in the periodical Reports of the Protector and of the Medical Inspectors. In the Reports of the Protector the hospitals are classed under the heads of "very good," "good," " tolerable," &c; 183 out of 208 being classed under the two first heads in the Report for 1870. The plain inference was that those hospitals, at least, met the requirements of the law. The description which Sir A. Gordon now gives of them is calculated to shake our confidence in the Reports of the Protector. This will appear still more strongly when we come to the Governor's statements as to the inspection of
estates.
9. Sir A. Gordon refers to the appointment of the Medical attendants, which in Mauritius, as, till lately, in the West Indian Colonies, is in the hands of the proprietors of estates. In Jamaica and Trinidad the appointment of these officers is now in the hands of the Government, and the same arrangement was recommended for British Guiana, by the Commissioners, and will probably be soon carried out there. The advantage of devolving these appointments on the Government, and so making the medical men comparatively independent of the proprietors, does not admit of question. Whenever the law in Mauritius is amended this alteration should be embodied in it.
10. Sir A. Gordon states that in Mauritius the law requires the immigrant to work on every day in the year (not including Sundays). The question as to Sunday work was brought under the notice of the Secretary of State by a despatch from the Acting- Governor, General Johnstone, dated 6th November, 1863. On inquiry, Sir II. Barkly reported that the statements made to General Johnstone by the coolies had been much exaggerated; that although employers might endeavour to obtain more, coolics equally endeavoured to rendor less service than they were bound to do, and that the competi-
39
tion for labour placed the immigrant in a position of independence, which protected him from oppression, and enabled him to assert his rights. The labour on Sundays is restricted by law to attendance on the cattle, and other work indispensable for the safety of the estate, and is not to extend beyond & A.M. No doubt, in the West Indies some of the labourers on an estate, immigrants or others--are required to attend to the cattle, &c. on Sundays, as on other days. The apparent difference in Mauritius may arise from the fact that the immigrants are there paid a monthly instead of a daily rate of wages, and consequently that there is no special payment for labour on Sunday.
11. The Governor points out that the penalties for absence or desertion are much heavier than in the West Indies. The existing Law and Regulations were framed by Sir H. Barkly in 1864, and I would beg to refer to his despatch of 5th May of that year on the subject.
12. Sir A. Gordon states that while the law in the West Indies enforces periodical inspection by Magistrates and Immigration Agents of estates on which immigrants are employed, the law in Mauritius, though it allows, does not require, the Protector to make any such inspections, and gives no authority to do so to any one else. He adds that, practically, the Protector has ceased to carry out any system of inspection, and that the Stipendary Magistrates having no legal right to do so, and having in some instances been refused admission, confine themselves within the safest bounds. In illustration of the abuses that may be perpetrated without discovery, where the inspection is so mere a form, he instances the case of certain labourers on the estate of M. Montille, who, after the estate had been inspected and passed, as usual, were found to have been imprisoned in an illegal and cruel manner on the charge of absenting themselves from their work. The circumstances of this case were reported in Sir H. Barkly's despatch, 1st September, 1885. As regards the Protector, the discontinuance of his visits of inspection requires explanation. In consequence of a suggestion from this Board in February 1864, the Governor was directed to require the Protector to visit all estates on which immigrants were employed, and to report on their condition. Sir H. Barkly accordingly arranged that every such estate should be visited twice a year by the Stipendary Magistrate of the district and once by the Protector; and to allow of this arrangement being carried out an Ordinanco was passed (No. 5 of 1865) to enable the Chief Clerk in the Immigration Department to exercise the powers of the Protector during his absences. Abstracts of the half-yearly Reports of the Stipendary Magistrates have since been received regularly up to 30th June, 1870, and Annual Reports from the Protector up to 30th December, 1870. In some of the earlier of these the Protector refers to his own inspection of estates. In the latter he refers to facts that led to the inference that he spoke from personal knowledge. It is, therefore, with much surprise we received the statement that, practically, he had ceased to visit estates, a proceeding which, unless a satisfactory explanation of it can be given, appears to merit very serious notice. The defect in the law, which authorized only, but did not require, periodical inspection by the Protector, was supposed to have been cured by the instructions issued by Sir H. Barkly. The visits of the Stipendary Magistrates, acting as delegates from the Protector, were also supposed to be real and effective. It appears from the Governor's despatch that they were, in many cases, a mere delusion, and as such, worse than nothing, by inspiring the Government with false security. There can be no doubt as to the necessity of providing for an effective inspection of estates in future, not only by the Protector but by either the Stipendary Magistrates, or officers specially appointed for the service.. Whether, after what has occurred, the inspection can be confidently entrusted to the present Protector is a question which I submit for the consideration of the Earl of Kimberley.
13. The power confided to the Governor in the West Indies to remove immi- grants from an estate where they have been ill-used, or which is shown to be unhealthy, does not exist in Mauritius. This is a serious defect in the law.
14. Sir A. Gordon calls attention to the difference between the position of old immigrants in the West Indies and Mauritius, and to the exceptional obligations and restrictions to which the latter are subjected. Upon this point I shall at present add nothing to what is said in my Report of 25th February, 1808, on the Ordinance No. 31 of 1867, especially as the Governor expresses an intention of writing further on the subject hereafter." At the time the Ordinance was passed, Sir II. Barkly, the Procureur- General, the Superintendent of Police, and the Protector, were unanimous in considering ita provisions necessary, and in deference to their opinions the Home Government approved the Ordinance. Sir A. Gordon evidently dissents from their opinions on this