PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference:-
AAC.O.882
2
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TO
104
passage. His evidence shows that he receives 20 dollars or 41. per month, in addition to a bag of rice (164 lbs.), and 8 lbs. dhall per month, and he has free lodging and medical care begides. Chunagee and Rajoo say they were promised a return passage, and ask to be sent back. Perbutty, Codabuocus, and Ramen make no complaint, but ask to be sent back. Ramen is entitled to go whenever he chooses. Boodhun, Mohur, and Parchund say they cannot save money enough to pay for back passages. It was extracted from Parchund that he possessed two cows, for which he had paid 401., and he complained that when he wanted grass for them he was obliged to pay for it. On this evidence it is deliberately stated that there was a general complaint as to- return passages. The petition of the 10,000 old immigrants makes no complaint on the subject.
271. States that, "with a view to prevent cases of confirmed vagrancy, we recom- mend that a return passage to India be given after a residence of five years, in addition to the industrial residence." I dissent from this Article, and all of a similar nature touching return passages: first, because it is a question which does not come within the scope of the inquiry directed by the Governor's instructions; secondly, because the recommendation has been adopted on the mere presumption that it will prevent vagrancy, and without any examination of the reasons and motives for discontinuing the granting of free return passages; and because there is nothing in the evidence to justify the raising of the question here.
The whole question is one upon which I reserve my opinion until I am able to examine the subject thoroughly and fairly.
JOHN FRASER.
9, Idol Lane, London, June 25, 1872.
No. 88.
(Signed)
Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Kimberley.—(Received
(No. 174. Miscellaneous,) My Lord,
July 1.)
Mauritius, May 27, 1872.
IN my despatch No. 127 of the 4th April last, I reported the adoption, by the unanimous vote of the Council of Government, of certain Resolutions based on the recommendations contained in your Lordship's despatch No. 216 of the 18th Decem- ber last.
2. I also stated that the consideration of a Resolution, with reference to the restoration of the grant of return passages to immigrants, had been postponed for a short time, in order to allow the papers with respect to the discontinuance of these passages, in 1858, to be perused and fully considered by all the members of the
Board.
3. The discussion of this Resolution, which had, at the request of the unofficial members, been, on several occasions, from time to time deferred, took place on the 21st instant.
I inclose a report of the debate, which was sustained with ability and moderation. Your Lordship will, I think, find the speeches of the Protector and of the Acting Procureur-General not undeserving of attention.
4. On a division, the Resolution was only carried by my own deliberative vote; for although two unofficial members, Mr. Antelme and Mr. Ducray, voted in its favour, one of the official members, the Acting Treasurer, voted against it.
5. I had not anticipated that this Resolution would receive the same unanimous approval which had been accorded to those adopted on the 28th March. But, at the same time, I was surprised that the majority was not larger; more than one of those who voted in the minority having previously assured me that no difficulty whatever would be raised as to the adoption of the Resolution. The period of delay, however, had been not altogether unsuccessfully used by those opposed to its passage.
6. But for two considerations, which removed all hesitation on my part in proceeding at once with this measure, I should have been much disposed to have abstained from pressing its adoption until the Royal Commission had closed its
labours.
7. The first and most important of these considerations was the strong opinion entertained both by the Protector of Immigrants and myself, that its immediate adoption was imperatively required to prevent an almost total cessation of immi- gration from India. During the year 1871, upwards of 7,000 requisitions were sent
105
to India, of which only about 2,000 were complied with. During the present year 8,000 requisitions have been forwarded, and, although the year is now nearly half over, only 800 or 700 immigrants have arrived from India. At the same time, I find that Trinidad, and, I believe, the other West Indian Colonies, experience little or no difficulty in recruiting all, or nearly all, the number of labourers they require. I do not mean to say that the indisposition to emigrate to Mauritius, as compared with the West Indian Colonies, is entirely due to the absence of provision for a return passage but I have no doubt that it forms a very important item in the list of causes for that reluctance.
8. The other consideration which weighed with me was, that the abandonment of the Resolution would have been greatly misapprehended here, would have exercised most unfavourable effect on the efforts of the agents of the Colony in India to procure recruits, whilst I think that the erroneous impressions, to which such a course would have given credit here, would have had a tendency to raise obstacles in the way of the prosecution of the inquiries of the Royal Commission.
9. I may mention that, shortly after the arrival of the Commissioners, I consulted them as to the abandonment or further prosecution, at this time, of the Resolution in question, and obtained their assent to its being proceeded with.
I have, &c.
(Signed) ARTHUR GORDON.
Inclosure in No. 38.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL.
Under the Presidency of his Excellency the Governor.
Sitting of May 21, 1872.
Free Return Passages for Immigrants.
THE Resolution proposed by his Excellency having been read, and the Honourable Mr. Montocchio having signified his intention to vote against it, as he thought the return to the system of free back-passages would be disadvantageous to the interests of the Colony, his Excellency addressed the Board in the following terms:-
He said that he did not propose to address the Board at any great length in support of the Resolution. In the first place, he would refer to those reasons which had led to the discontinuance of return passages and which he believed no longer existed, and having referred to those reasons he would then turn to a consideration of the reasons in support of their revival, reasons which, he believed, could not have been urged at the time they were given up. Among the reasons which had been advanced for their discontinuance was the expense it entailed upon the Colony, and it was now urged that, if the practice was revived, large numbers would avail themselves of the privilege, and that therefore the expense to the country would be very great. But he thought this was a somewhat mistaken view, and he did not believe that many emigrants, after a lengthy settlement in the island in the receipt of a permanent income, and enjoying the settlement of a home, would desire to go back to India. This plan was not a new one, but between 1847 and 1858 the only alternative seemed to have been that the right to a return-passage should occur at the end of the industrial passage or not at all, but he believed that the decision in favour of the plan now proposed would bring within moderate limits the expense of the system. But after all he need not dwell at any great length if at all upon this question of expense, for he was sure it was a consideration which no member of the Board would allow to weigh upon his mind for a single instant. Another of the reasons urged for the discontinu- ance of the return passage was the desire to encourage a large increase of the resident population. That desire had most undoubtedly been obtained, but he must confess that, until the sanitary legislation of the Colony had obtained a point much in advance of its present condition, and much in advance of what was at all probable in any brief period of time, ho should view any considerable increase of the population not merely with dissatisfaction but also with alarm. Therefore, putting aside that object as having been obtained, he would advert to a reason why it was necessary that these return passages should be revived. In 1851, before they were abolished, the cost of a passage was small; in 1851 only 15s., and at the date of the abolition it was
E [134]