PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TILTIC.O. 882
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
118
adopting the Resolution. The Protector of Immigrants, who knew by his position the difficulties to be met with in India in obtaining Indians, said that the measure would remove these difficulties, and that fortified him in his position. Besides he thought the measure would only affect the new immigrants, and that the old immigrants had become so used to their work, and their mode of living, that there was no reason to fear that they would return to India. And as regards the expense of the system, he thought it would be small, as it was likely that the new immigrants, finding men of their own nation here, would follow their example, and would renew and renew their term of industrial service.
The Honourable Mr. Jourdain thought it was well known that like the last speaker he was quite independent of what was known at the Board as the "planting interest." But as one of the inofficial members who intended to vote against the Resolution, he He had hoped he might be allowed to say a few words in justification of his course. from the first felt most strongly against the Resolution, and his opinion had but been confirmed by all he had heard that day. It appeared that the great argument put forward in support of the Resolution was that it was an absolute necessity to propose it, so that our immigration agents might be put in a position to cope with the competition of other Colonies against which they now had to contend. That was a matter which Had they complained seemed to him to concern most directly the "planting interest."
of having found any difficulty in obtaining men ? If so, by all manner of means pass the Resolution. But they had not done so, and they had been told that day that the Chamber of Agriculture was opposed to the Resolution. He could make nothing out of the speeches of the honourable gentlemen who had preceded him, save that they They stated they would vote meant to support the motion, because it meant nothing. for the Resolution, as they were satisfied that hardly any Indians afterwards would the Resolution ? Certainly if take advantage of it. Of what avail, then, was it to
pass the opinions of the honourable gentlemen were such as they had stated, it would be against." The measure more logical for them to announce their intention of voting " was also proposed in the interest of sanitary improvement, and it was said that by it a large number of people would be removed from the island; and yet, in the same breath, they were told that it was not likely that after ten years' residence in the island many Indians would return to their own country. If that would be the case he could not follow the argument that the Resolution would advance sanitary reform. The Protector of Immigrants had said that, within the last twenty years the Colony had reached, if it had not passed, its culminating point of prosperity. If we had passed that point we were on the decline, and as each year went on we should want less men. He had further stated that, better far than under-ground drainage or surface drainage, would be the drain from our redundant population, which the proposed measure would effect. This required further explanation, as unless the Resolution were to have a retroactive effect he could not understand how it could affect the actual state of things. If that were so, where again was the accuracy of the argument as to sanitary improve- It was all very well to put that in the van, but ment being secured by the measure? the measure did nothing for it. There could be no doubt that our sanitary state was not what it ought to be. It had had very serious consideration, and it was desirable that something should be done to remedy it. That was the way in which to meet the present evil, and not by holding out extraordinary inducements to immigrants- inducements, too, which the "planting interest," who are the best judges on the matter, said were not required. But they say sanitary legislation was required, and it appeared to him especially so in presence of the alarming statement made by the honourable Protector, that there was a possibility, at no very distant date, of the already large population reaching 600,000, and he was unable to follow the argument which, in one breath, said the measure was to relieve us of our redundant population, and that it was not to apply to those already here. It was said that the measure would be doing justice to the Indians, but that he very much doubted; and he was sure it would give rise to this idea, that the Mauritius planters, instead of caring to pay for improved labour, preferred to be constantly importing cheap labour in the form of fresh immigrants. There was another point which he wished to bring under notice, and that was that many Indians returned rich to their own country. Unfortunately he had not the paper with him to give details on the point, but he could assure the Board that the amount they carried away with them was something considerable. The best proof that immigration was not such a necessity as was made out was in the fact that they managed to do all the work to be performed while only importing about the same number of Indians who left the island every year. And as to the point that the state of things hal entirely altered, and that return passages must be revived in consequence
119
of the enhanced price of the journey to India, he was led to believe that Indians, if left to themselves, could get back at almost the same price as they could twenty years ago. If the price had increased, it was only because they were obliged, under a penalty of 3., to go in the vessels chartered by, the Protector of Immigrants. Again, he could not see how any argument in support of the motion could be founded on the fact that return passages were granted by the West Indian Colonies. It was only just and fair that those Colonies should do so because they were a long way off from India. Vessels rarely went thence direct to India, there being no trade between the two places, and a vessel had to be specially chartered to take the men away. The men could not naturally be expected to go round, via England, in mail-boats, and therefore return passages from the West Indian Colonies was but a simple act of justice. But the caso was very different here. We were in constant communication with India, the passage was cheap, and very frequently there were vessels sailing twice a woek. He was quite surprised that such an argument should ever have been brought forward at that Board. As to sanitary reform, instead of offering such a policy as that now suggested, they should prefer that laid down in the paragraph of a despatch of his Grace the Duke of Buckingham and Chandos :---
"It appears to me very desirable also that you should consider the expediency of placing under some general regulations the immigrant coolies who choose to remain in the Colony after their terms of engagement have been fulfilled, otherwise it appears to me that these labourers, whose introduction has proved so beneficial to the Colony, may eventually give rise to very great evils if they are allowed to remain in the Colony uncontrolled and without specific employment."
On this suggestion was, in a great measure, founded the Ordinance 31 of 1967, under which the large number of Indians now here could be dealt with, and even freo return passages be granted to those unable to find employment. It was unwise to go back to a system which had been abandoned, after mature deliberation, some twenty years ago, and it ought not to be reverted to unless planters came forward and said that wages were rising, and that to carry on, at a profit, it was necessary to import fresh immigrants. When they did that it might be necessary to hold out increased induce- ments to obtain immigrants, but until they asked for it he must vote against the Resolution.
The Honourable the Acting Procureur-General thought, in a case like the present, the question to be considered was on which side lay the burden of proof. It would seem, from the tone of the discussion, that those who opposed the motion thought that the burden of argument did not rest with them; and his honourable friend who had just sat down would have been quite right in his argument, that the measure was unnecessary as it was uncalled for, if what was proposed was a radical change. But that was not the question.__The question was whether we should accept an experiment made twenty years ago. He found that the change in 1853 introduced into our imme- gration a peculiarity which distinguished it from all other countries that imported immigrants. His honourable friend had attempted to show the reason for that, but he thought that the present peculiar position of affairs justified them in adopting not a new system but a system which existed twenty years ago, and so follow the example of all other immigrant-importing countries; and he thought that, to prove whether the system here would produce different results to what it did elsewhere, they must go into the motives which led to the change in 1882. He would not dwell upon this part of the subject because it had already been gone into most clearly and fully, especially in the Report of the Immigration Committee of 1852. The origin of that Report was to be found in the despatch from the then Governor to the Government of India, which will be found on page 25 of the printed papers. That despatch was referred to in paragraph 2 of the Report of the Immigration Committee, and again in paragraph 18 of the same Report. And after dealing with that despatch, the Committee went on to enlarge upon what would be the results of the abolition of return passages. Their principal expectations were two. First of all, in the 6th paragraph of their Report they said:
"The aim of the Colony is to obtain a sufficient number of labourers settled in the island, by whose constant and regular labour the cultivation of the estates may bo continuously carried on, without those changes and interruptions which in past years have so greatly intorfered with their progress."
In paragraph 7 they went on and said the aim of the country was to obtain a sufficient number of labourers to carry on its production: There then would be found what were the aims of the country. That it had been obtained to a certain extent must be admitted, but he must think that the limited extent of good that had been
Page 360Page 361
PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLILIC.O.882
www
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
120
secured had been accompanied with much evil. So far as the settlement of Indians was concerned, there were infinitely more Indians settled here now than before 1852, but that which was undoubtedly an important result was not the result desired by the Immigration Committee. They desired the settlement of labourers though they might then have contemplated as the yield of the year what was now grown in a day. He was sure that they had taken no such narrow view of the matter, but had hoped to get sufficient labour to meet the demands of the Colony. And now after a long trial, after half a life time, it had been proved that the resident Indians did not supply the labour of the country. And that was clearly proved by the statement of the Protector of Immigrants that last year there were 7,000 requisitions for labourers, and that this year there were even 8,000. It was, therefore, very clear that the result expected in 1852 had not been obtained. To his mind, and he thought but few would disagree with him, the change had proved a great disadvantage to the country. Though he could not, and had not the opportunity of going into the subject very closely, he believed the result of the change was shortly this: that there were a large proportion of immi- grants in the country, about 20,000, who were not merely useless, but pernicious and hurtful to the country. The result of the change had been that while it gave us a good class of labourers it also gave us a useless and pernicious class of labourers. And when one looked at the great increase of crime and the expense thus incurred by the country, one could not help feeling that from a pecuniary point of view return passages ought never to have been abolished. It was said that if return passages were revived the only effect would be to induce the industrious portion of the immigrants to return home, but it would not make much difference, for those men were in a position to go now if they choose. He was quite sure that the abolition of return passages had not retained a single industrious man in the island, but it had retained those who are wanting in every quality necessary to make a good citizen, who have not the determination to work nor the thrift to save what they may earn. That was the necessary result of the abolition of return passages. The good and the industrious might have gone any day. They had not gone, and we now found them on sugar estates. But the result had been that those who would not, and who did not choose to earn a passage for themselves had to be maintained by those who did work, and by the country at large. The Immi- gration Committee had not gone much into the question of the expense of return passages, it was not mainly urged by them in their recommendation. But in another document the matter was most strongly put. Governor Higginson, in one of his despatches, had affirmed that the burden it cast upon the Colony was such as to make it an urgent reason for the abolition of return passages. He was greatly inclined to doubt, looking at the result, whether any saving had been effected. He was inclined, if they had the means of calculation, and could form a calculation, to believe that the retention of a bad class of immigrants had proved a more serious charge and a beavier tax than would have proved to be the free return passage. Then if we looked at, our sanitary condition, which was already in a bad state, we should feel inclined to vote the change. It was asked what good would the measure do for that, when it would not be in operation for ten years. Very true, but they must take steps at once to prevent its becoming worse, when we add to our sanitary condition those large number of immigrants who neither work nor do any good, who either fill our hospitals and workhouses, or put in motion the costly machinery of the law. If then we looked to those three sources of expenditure, and could work out the figures, we should find that the balanes would be very much against instead of in favour of the Colony. He did not think then that the two arguments that had secured the abolition of return passages had proved as correct as was expected. And it was a curious coinci- dence, and one worthy of attention, that all those who had advocated the abolition of return passages as necessary for the safety of the island now advocated a return to that Bystem. If one looked to 1951, one found the Governor, the Protector of Immigrants, the Immigration Agents, all advocating the abolition of return passages. And now look at the present moment. His Excellency had had no hesitation in telling them that a reversion to the old system was a necessity; the Protector of Immigrants had not hesitated to do the same; and both his Excellency and the Protector had read to them extracts from the letters of their Immigration Agents telling us that the state of affairs had altered so much that the prospects of immigration would be endangered if Mauritius persisted in the policy of 1852. It would thus be seen that those who in 1852 advocated the abolition of return passages were now prepared to revert to the system. The first argument used in 1852 was that of the benefit that would accrue to the Colony. But he thought that was rather an unsound argument, for, as he had said, the honest and industrious citizen could have gone at any moment. And it was equally
121.
unsound to argue that these men would be lost by the reintroduction of return passages, for he believed that the men understood their good position here. There never need be a fear of a scarcity of such men in the island. But the reintroduction of return passages would benefit the island, for they would be accepted by lazy, idle men, who would not work, and who could not therefore provided the means of livelihood, and they would accept because the return passage would mean comført for a short period of time, and it would enable them to return to their own country. With the question of expense he had already dealt, and need not again refer to it. He thought it would be found that the same motives, the same cogent reasons which actuated honourable members in 1852 to advocate the abolition of return passages were now equally powerful, and he trusted that this would be so strongly felt by the Board that they would accept the Resolution.
The Honourable Mr. Pitot was surprised to hear that the same people voted in 1852 as were about to vote now. Surely the learned gentleman must be in error.
The Honourable Mr. Ellis replied that he had meant of course not the actual persons present, but persons holding the same office.
The Honourable H. Pitot, in continuation, said that he begged to submit a few further observations, and would begin with noticing one of the arguments put forward by the Honourable the Procureur-General, who had just spoken, which argument seemed to be the principal and almost the only one made use of by his honourable friend. This argument only amounted to this: that the return passage will not be availed of by the honest and industrious portion of the Indians, but that it will serve as a means for eliminating from them what the Honourable Procureur-General terms the residuum of the Indian population; adding that generally the rogues and criminals were recruited from amongst that same residuum, no doubt meaning by the word residuum, those con- firmed vagrants spoken of in the Ordinance 31 of 1887. The Honourable Mr. Pitot had only to observe, referring to the clause of the law, that the means of this desired elimination had been in the hands of the Executive Government, which is alone to blame if it has not availed itself for that purpose of the powers conferred on it. The honourable member said that he would now refute one of the arguments of the honour- able Mr. Antelme, in which his honourable friend seemed to have been quite incon- sistent with himself. He had understood the Honourable Mr. Antelme to say that the adoption of the return passage, far from being injurious to this Colony, would be, on the contrary, a great boon to it, as it would induce many more immigrants to go back to India, and there spread over the country the good reputation of Mauritius; but that his honourable friend had terminated by stating that as the return passage will pro- bably be granted only to future immigrants after the period of ten years' industrial residence, scarcely any immigrant would then think of leaving the Colony.
Here the Honourable Mr. Antelme interposed, and observed that he had not said 'scarcely any," but "few."
The Honourable H. Pitot said that he had no objection to replace the words "scarcely any" by "fow," which would not in the slightest degree affect the strength of his objections to the argument of his honourable friend, which could not in any way be reconciled, and, in fact, destroyed one another. He had now to touch upon apother much more serious point, which had escaped the notice of the honourable members who had so ably spoken against the Resolution; he referred to the words that had fallen from his Excellency's lips, and in which an allusion was made to a paragraph in a despatch of the Secretary of State, which reads as follows:--
"The abandonment of the obligation to provide back passages seems to have had the injurious effect of retaining in the Colony a large residuum of the worse class of Indians, while the industrious and frugal have no difficulty in securing their return to their native country, and I am clearly of opinion that the provisions for the payment of back passages should be at once re-established."
The honourable member could not conceal from himself that the Secretary of State appeared to have come to that conclusion solely because his Excellency, in his Memorandum No. 1, had stated that Ordinance No. 31 of 1887 gave the Governor power to send back to India, on the report of the Protector of Immigrants, any new immigrant disabled by sickness, omitting (no doubt from inadvertence) to inform his Lordship at the same time that the same law gave the Executive Government the same power to send back to India with a return passage at the expense of the Colony, those who had been in the discussion spoken of as the residuum, or, as he might say, the idle and vagabond part of the Indian population.
The honourable member felt confident that, had the Secretary of State been more fully informed, he would not have arrived at the same conclusion, and he felt equally
[134]
3 1