PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
TITICO. 882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
Sir,
24
Inclosure in No. 5.
Chambers, Port Louis, January 26, 1872. IN obedience to instructions, I have the honour to submit the following Report of the Complaint at the instance of sixty-seven Indians of Mont Choisy Estate, against Mr. Henry Poulin.
I have, &c.
(Signed)
A. G. ELLIS, Substitute Procureur-General. Ilis Excellency the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G.,
&c.
&c.
&c.
Report on the Mont Choisy Estate case.
The respondent in this complaint is proprietor of a Sugar Estate, in the District of Pamplemousses, called "Mont Choisy." About 1000 acres of this estate are under cultivation, and upon it there are employed 431 male Indian immigrants (vide Report of the Protector of Immigrants, 13th April, 1871). On the estate there are two Indian camps, one known as "the Camp," or "Mont Choisy Camp," and the other as the "Bois Rouge Camp." The majority of the Indians live at the former camp, and only from 80 to 100 at the camp of Bois Rouge.
The complainants were labourers belonging to the latter camp, and the alleged grievances, and the evidence led in proof of them, related to the mode in which the labourers of this camp were treated. There was no sufficient evidence to show that the men of both camps were treated in the same way; but what evidence there was on this subject tended to prove that they were so.
On the 11th of May, 1871, sixty-seven of the labourers of the Bois Rouge Camp came to Mr. Renouf, Stipendiary Magistrate for the District of Pamplemousses to complain against their master, Mr. Henry Poulin, on the ground of alleged ill-usage. Their complaint was not theu received, for some reason which has never been satis- factorily explained, and the complainants forthwith proceeded to the Immigration Depôt to lay their grievances before the Honourable Mr. Beyts, the Protector of Immigrants. The Protector of Immigrants heard their statements, and having examined some of the band with regard to them, he directed the men to return to their labour, and promised to institute an inquiry into their complaint. The men then left the Depot and returning to the Stipendiary Court, lodged a complaint, and went back to Mont Choisy.
On the following day the Honourable Mr. Beyts visited Mont Choisy Estate, in order to inquire into this matter. He there had an interview with Mr. Poulin who, in answer to his inquiries, made a formal statement to him with regard to his custom and the practice prevailing on the estate in relation to the matters on which the complaint was based.
This statement was reduced to writing by the Protector in the presence of, and subject to the alterations suggested by Mr. Poulin. As it has a most important bearing on the case, the statement will be found at length in the Appendix hereto (No. 1), and it is sufficient to say that the statement showed that several of the grounds of complaint were well founded, and that the system upon which the estate was worked was illegal and demanded immediate investigation.
In consequence of the serious nature of the complaints and the large number of complainants, I was requested to conduct the complaint and watch over the interest of the Immigrant labourers.
The following is a copy of the complaint as framed before the Magistrate from the statements of the complainants. The language in which the various counts are expressed is not, perhaps, so precise or so well chosen as might have been desired; but, as the terms employed are as nearly as possible a literal reproduction of the grievances alleged by the spokesman of the complainants,-which was not objected to as too loose, it was not judged expedient at the commencement of the case, to make any formal amendments on the complaint.
Complaint.
1. Waking them up at 2 o'clock, A.M., to be sent to work, and keeping them at work until half-past 6 P.M., and thus obliging them to reach their camp at 8 P..
2. When absent from work one day, their week's rations are cut off.
}
25
25
8. When sick and after medicine has been given to them, they are not allowed to remain in hospital, and are sent to work with the bullocks.
4. When they do not appear at payday to receive the wages due to them, the same are forfeited, and it is only when they re-engage that the said money is refunded to them.
5. The amount of “ 'pioches" and other tools given to them to work with on the estate is reduced from their wages.
Ghoon," but that
6. Two rupees were forcibly cut from their wages for the " money was used for that religious ceremony.
7. For the use of water from the well, 1 dollar was cut, every year, from their
wages.
8. Whenever they are caught picking up dry wood, 10 rupees are asked from them, and when they refuse to pay that amount, they are sent to the police.
9. When the task-work is not finished at 5 o'clock P.M., their wages are cut off.* The principal object of the complainants in bringing this complaint was to obtain the cancellation of their contracts with their master, and failing that, to recover com- pensation for the extra labour exacted from them and for the sums unduly deducted from their wages.
In reporting on the case, the following order has been adopted :- (1.) A short account is given of the procedure in the case;
(2.) The evidence adduced is briefly summed up, and the facts which seem to result from that evidence are stated;
(3.) The law, as I apprehend it, relating to the various counts is stated; And (4.) The judgments pronounced are examined in relation to their harmony with the facts and law.
I have endeavoured, as far as possible, to discard any bias resulting from my con- nection with the case as Counsel for the Indians. I am aware, however, that such an endeavour can never be completely successful, and that the opinions expressed cannot be regarded as quite impartial.
I-Sketch of Procedure.
On 17th May an Information was lodged in the District Court by Mr. Poulin against eleven of his labourers, all but one or two of whom were amongst the com- plainants in this case. As this information had a considerable bearing on the complaint, a short account of it is here given.,
The charge made against the eleven men was that of endeavouring to persuade four labourers to absent themselves from their master's estate, and was founded on Article 323 of Ordinance 6 of 1839 (the Penal Code of Mauritius). That Article pro- vides that "Whoever shall be convicted of having enticed away, concealed, secreted, or employed any servant or apprentice duly engaged, or of having persuaded, or endeavoured to persuade, such servant or apprentice to leave the service of his master, or to absent himself therefrom, shall be condemned to imprisonment not exceeding six months, and to a fine not exceeding 251. sterling."
The information was tried on the 3rd of June. The witnesses for the informant were three of the labourers, whom the defendants were said to have endeavoured to persuade to absent themselves from their master's service, and two other witnesses, whose evidence did not touch the case.
From the depositions of the witnesses, it appeared that on the 8th of May a Sirdar (or overseer) on Mr. Poulin's estate, was sent to the police station by his master on a charge of cutting live timber on the estate. This appeared to have caused great dis- content amongst the other labourers, and a meeting of fifty or sixty of them was held the same evening in connection with the matter. One of the defendants, Bandhoo Panchoo, was said by Cheekorie, one of the witnesses, to have brought him to this moeting, and another witness, Beeharry-Sectram, said that one of the defendants, Nawoofer, had said to him, "We are going to have a meeting; come!"
At the meeting, a Brahmin, Bhyrub, one of the defendants, was present, and the witnesses said that "all the men were exhorting each other to fall at the feet of the Brahmin and engage to go and complain." All the defendants, with one or two exceptions, were present at the meeting, but no active part seems to have been taken by any of them except four. Of these four, Bundhoo Panchoo was only spoken to by one witness as having "brought him" to the meeting, The part of Bhyrub, the
• There was also a claim at the instance of some of the complainants for wages for March and April 1871. This claim was admitted, and does not require to be dealt with in this Report.
[134]
H