PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
C.O.88
882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
of Immigrants, would make those inspections which the Protector himself could not personally make.
It was to be expected that the new law would meet with some opposition-all laws will, the tendency of which is to secure a stricter control over the Acts, more powerful checks against the negligence of landed proprietors. Not that landed proprietors fear the consequences of such control or checks, but the very fact of their having been thought necessary creates in fervid imaginations the erroneous idea that a necessary check is but a first step to unnecessary checks; a useful provision, but the harbinger of other provisions uselessly inquisitorial, or leading to unjust petty annoyances.
A few verbal amendments introduced in the original draft soon satisfied, I believe, certainly silenced the threatened opposition; chimerical fears were dispelled, and the justice of the principle, and of the system enacted to carry out the principle, stood out in relief; the Ordinance thus ultimately passed with little opposition.
There is a striking clause in the Immigration Ordinance of British Guiana which has not been inserted in the Ordinance passed by the Legislature of Mauritius, and which I may as well notice at once.
In that Colony (British Guiana, vide No. 4 of 1864, Part IX, section 90) two of the Immigration Agent-General's special visits are preceded by notice in the Gazette, and letter addressed to the manager of plantations, and duly posted.
They do not appear to have been introduced in the Immigration Acts of other Colonies, and there was no sufficient reason to adopt them here. No member of the Legislature suggested that they should form part of the Ordinance, and I apprehend that that particular enactment was well known, since the Reports of the Emigration Com- missioners were not unknown. In fact, it seems that previous notice of an official visit, whilst perfectly useless in the case of planters who treat their labourers well (and they form, verily believe, the immense majority of proprietors here), would defeat the object of the law in those exceptional cases which may at times call for the direct and immediate interference of the Inspector. There is accordingly nothing in the Ordinance submitted which is at all inconsistent with the laws passed in other Colonies for the same purpose or with the same object.
I must, however, submit another general observation before I leave the principles of the Ordinance to enter into a summary examination of its several sections.
It might be asked, why should not the stipendiary magistrates continue to inspect estates as they were authorized to do by the orders issued to them by the Governor ?
1. They were authorized, and as a rule, their visits were seldom objected to; but the planters could not, by the law as it stood, be compelled to submit to them; their powers were in any case curtailed and practically useless.
But, 2, there is a very good reason why the power should not be legally vested in them; they are magistrates, and most, if not all, the penalties which might be incurred by proprietors guilty of any offence which Inspectors are intended to prevent or to punish would be tried before those magistrates; they could hardly be prosecutors and judges; make up their minds that an offence had been committed, and should give rise to prosecution and decide upon the merits of a cause they had already prejudged. The system was imperfect, it was bad, and was not propped up or sustained.
I now proceed to consider the sections of the Ordinance seriatim.
The first vests in Her Majesty the right of appointing fit and proper persons to the newly created officers, and limits the number of Inspectors to two; it must not be forgotten that the powers of Inspector, already vested in the Protector by the Ordinance of 1882, are not taken away,-nay, they are specially maintained by section 4,-and the spirit which pervades the law is made apparent by the fact that the Inspectors are to act under his direction and control (section 7).
The second section fixes the salary of the Inspectors at a fixed sum, and a contingent allowance for travelling; a new feature as to this item is introduced in this Ordinance. The allowance for travelling is not voted in one lump sum, to be spent or not, the officer will have to show that the expenses he claims payment of have been actually incurred; this is an innovation, but a salutary one, as the railway has much decreased the cost of travelling, and it is a notorious fact that a good deal of travelling is done, not in carriages paid for by the officers, but in vehicles found for the officer by friends or planters themselves.
Article 3 is one of the most important sections of the Law; the powers conferred upon the Inspectors are great, but not too great, they extend over all industrial establishments, charitable institutions; in fact, wherever (except private houses) the immigrant is to be found the Inspector may find his way, and in them also are vested the powers assigned to the medical officers under the Law (29 of 1805) which regulates hospitals and medical attendance in connection with inmigrants.
5
The last provision is followed by an important measure; the Inspectors of Immigrants are free from the control of the General Board of Health, or any local Board. They could not well be under the Protector's control and that of the Board of Health; the directions issued might and probably would be contradictory, and the more I see of the working of Boards, general, local, or under whatever appellation they make their influence felt, the more I am satisfied that the system of having one responsible officer, whose acts are immediately subject to the Governor's undoubted right of approbation or disallowance, is in every point of view more efficacious, more just, and less liable to circumlocution and nonsense breeding, than the Boards or Committees I have seen at work.
Article 4 I have alluded to when considering Article 1.
Article 5 enacts the general directions given by the Law to the Inspectors, but the minimum number of visits enacted by that section of the Ordinance is not exclusive of more frequent visits or any specini visit which, on account of circum- stances that cannot be foreseen in the Law, may be deemed necessary.
Article 6 is a corollary to Article 3. It is evident that if the books and registers kept on those establishments which the Protector or Inspectors are in duty bound to visit were not forthcoming, and if those officers had not the right to enforce their production, the returns and reports sent in would not only be meagre and unsatis- factory, but might lead even to grievous mistakes, and to a culpable concealment of the facts which the Inspector was expected to discover and deal with.
Article 7 I have already alluded to (observations on Articles 1 and 3). Article 8 provides for the abolition, on vacancy, of the office of Inspecting Medical Officers; these officers are also Assistant-General Sanitary Inspectors, and the new Law on the Public Health provides for the abolition of that part of their duties. The abolition of these offices had long been generally called for; they are practically useless, and whatever functions these officers have to perform will be just as well fulfilled, and at less expense, under the provisions of the Public Health Ordinance and of this.
Article 9 is also essential. It has, it would appear, worked well in other Colonies, and strict compliance with its enactments will not only facilitate the framing of statistical Tables,-a very important subject,-but open out fields of investigation in quarters where they could not otherwise be suspected; absences and desertions may be traced up to their real cause; increase or decrease of mortality not left unexplained; and that the enactments shall be complied with is to be hoped from the penalty imposed upon negligence or mendacity by section 10.
Article 11 also enacts penalties (a usual clause) against those who may disturb or molest the Inspectors, or fail to produce the books or documents spoken of in Article 10, or may refuse, when required, to produce an immigrant in pursuance of Article 8 of this Ordinance.
Article 12 sets a limitation to the right of lodging information if such offences require to be punished; the punishment should be speedy and sharp, and not suffered to be in abeyance for more than a determined period of time.
Article 18, the Penal Laws now in force are not interfered with; and by Article 14 the Ordinances of 1862 and 1865, and Proclamations No. 1 of 5th January, 1866, are not modified, except when repugnant to or inconsistent with the present Ordinance, which, by Article 15, is to be construed with the last Ordinance, No. 31 of 1867.
As I have stated above, this Law seems to me a just and wise Law, calculated to inspire confidence, whilst it will surely check possible abuses. The fact that it was suggested by the Immigration Committee, when seized with the whole question, is an important one. The planters of this Colony do not fear, have no reason to fear, the working of measures such as this; and their attitude will go far to dispel the doubts that may have arisen in some quarters at to the treatment of the Indian labourer in this Colony.
As a rule, a very general rule, reasonably well paid, well fed, well clothed, well attended to, the immigrants are. If ever their condition can be made better,—and if it can, frequent inspections will show how and where, the planters and proprietors have, by readily responding in this instance to the Governor's initiative, shown their readiness to see adopted every just measure that may tend more effectually to protect from oppression the sinews of industry and agriculture.
I respectfully recommend that this Ordinance be confirmed by Her Majesty.
(Signed)
G. ST. JOHN, Procureur-General.
[134]
C