PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference :-
TLC.O.882
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
144
the present temporary office, I had no hesitation in asking Mr. Mitchell to undertake its duties.
Indeed, had he declined to do so, I should have found the utmost difficulty in filling it suitably, as of course no one could reasonably be expected to abandon other permanent pursuits or duties, to take an office only tenable for a few months; nor are there many who are fit for such a post who would care to do so. I have, &c.
No. 48.
(Signed)
ARTHUR GORDON.
Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Kimberley.—(Received
(No. 216.) My Lord,
July 26.)
Mauritius, June 27, 1872.
IN my despatch No. 192 of the 31st ultimo I had the honour to transmit to your Lordship the reasons of dissent of some of the members of the Council of Government from the Resolution passed by that body, on the 21st ultimo, with respect to the resumption of the grant of free return passages to Indian immigrants.
2. As this paper only reached my hands immediately before the closing of the mail, I was unable to accompany it by any remarks of my own.
It is not my intention to offer many observations with respect to its contents, but some brief notice of its arguments will probably be expected from me by your Lordship.
3. The reasons given for dissent, by those who have signed the protest, are not always very consistent with each other. On the one hand it appears to be assumed that the same proportion of immigrants now return to India as did so under the system of free return passages, and that their resumption is, therefore, unnecessary, whilst on other it is at the same time maintained to be desirable that the Indian should come to Mauritius without any idea of returning, and that it would be inexpedient to restore return passages, because it would encourage a larger number to return than at present do so.
15
In one of the "reasons it is contended that no difficulty exists in procuring a sufficient number of immigrants from India, whilst in others the difficulty is admitted, although it is striven to be shown that the absence to the right of return passages is not its cause. The framers of the protest, moreover, appear to fluctuate between a belief that the number availing themselves of the right, if regranted, will be so small as to produce no perceptible effect on the population, and one that it will be so considerable as to produce serious financial and industrial consequences.
4. But the best and probably the shortest method of dealing with this document will be to notice its allegations seriatim.
(1.) "Because many of the evils and prejudicial consequences which formerly resulted for the Colony and the immigrants themselves, from the right to a free return passage (recorded in the papers mentioned in the margin), and which led to the withdrawal of that right in 1863,-after full consideration by three successive Secretaries of State (Earl Gray, Sir John Pakington and the Duke of Newcastle) by the then Emigration Commissioners, the Court of Directors and the Governor-General of India in Council, would still, to a great extent, result again for the Colony and the immigrants, from the granting of that right to future immigrants."*
The "evils and prejudicial consequences" in question are not stated, but on reference to the papers quoted in the margin, they would appear to be chiefly, that the Colony was put to considerable expense, that the rapid augmentation of the resident population was checked, and that a deterring effect on female immigration was exercised by the existence of a right to return passage.
The last objection, if a sound one, would, no doubt, be serious, although it would not tell with greater force in the case of Mauritius than in that of the West Indies; but I must confess I attach no weight to it at all.
The number of Indians who will emigrate with the fixed and deliberate intention
• Printed Papers respecting discontinuance of return passages:—Reports of Immigration Committer of January 9, 1850), paragraphs 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22 page 5; of February 26, 1851, paragraphs 5, 6, 7.8, and 9. page 15. Of March 23, 1851, No. 1a of October 1852, pages 18 and 30. Governor Igginecu's despatches, No. 72 of April 25, 1851, juz» 20; No. 417 of December 3, 1852, page 33.
145
of never returning to India, must (as any one who knows the Indian will be well aware) always be so small as to be inappreciable.
Those who emigrate with a right to a return passage do so with the intention, though that intention may not always be carried out, or making use one day of that right. Those who emigrate without such a privilege, do so under the belief (too often a delusion) that they will earn enough to enable them to return in no long time, at their own option.
The objection that the growth of the resident population was retarded would not seriously affect me, for its rapid augmentation by artificial means has been the source of incalculable misfortunes to Mauritius, and if it should henceforth increase at a slower rate, its more moderate progress will certainly not be an "evil" or a "preju- dicial consequence" of the present measure.
The expense of return passages may, no doubt, be inconvenient and considerable. I do not think, however, the dissentients themselves would wish the question to be considered primarily on financial grounds.
But besides these reasons, I perceive among the papers quoted a reason given by Sir James Higginson, and by the Immigration Committee of that day, for the discon- tinuance of return passages, a reason strongly insisted on, and which, if valid then, may now be invoked with equal justice in support of their restoration.
Sir James Higginson and the Immigration Committee contend that although the right to a return passage might, under other circumstances, be properly given, it should now be withdrawn, because at the expiration of five years' residence the immigrants are "freed from all restrictions imposed by their previous condition, and become entitled to all the rights and immunities enjoyed by other classes of the com- munity,"
Whatever may have been the case previously, this is now, since the legislation of 1867, emphatically incorrect. The Indian population are now subject to disabilities and restrictions which, in the language of Her Majesty's Land and Emigration Com- missioners, are elsewhere only imposed on criminals under tickets of leave, and if the fact of living under an exceptional legislation was twenty years ago held to confer a claim to the grant of free return passages, their restoration may certainly, on the same ground, be now fairly demanded by the immigrant.
I notice, moreover, that the willingness of the Indian to emigrate to Mauritius, without the offer of any special inducements, and the small cost of the return passage, are both strongly insisted on as arguments against the necessity of continuing return passages. Neither of these arguments could be seriously urged now.
(2.) "Because it was settled in 1858, with the concurrence of the Home and Indian Authorities, that it was a question for this Colony to determine whether the right to a free return passage was indispensable to induce the immigrant to quit India,' and whether the discontinuance of such right would check the emigration of labourers from India or not.'"*
I fail to appreciate the applicability of this reason, for even assuming, which I cannot assume, that the Home and Indian Governments intended to abandon all right to counsel, or to interfere on this subject for the future, it must, I presume, be admitted that the Council of Government is the body which must decide such questions on behalf of the Colony itself.
(S.) "Because since 1853 upwards of 150,000 male, and of 60,000 female coolies have emigrated to Mauritius without the inducement of a free return passage, and the Colony has been able to obtain from India the supply of labour which it required. So that the experience of those nineteen years has conclusively proved that a free return passage is not an indispensable inducement to the intending emigrant."
It proves that it was not so, or that the fact of the withdrawal of the privilege was but imperfectly known; but in the face of the very small number of immigrants which, notwithstanding the large requisitions made, have been obtained from India during the last few years, the argument becomes inapplicable.
Moreover, it is inconsistent with the "reasons' which follow; for if the numbers arriving are such as to show that this inducement is not required to encourage men to emigrate, it would equally show that the "other advantages," the offer of which "to induce the number of labourers who may be required to emigrate,” is spoken of with commendation in the following "reason,' are also unnecessary, as the enormous immigration referred to took place without them.
* Report of Immigration Committee of February 26, 1851, paragraph 6, paga 16. Governor Higginson's despatch of December 8, 1852, paragraph 4, page 34. Report of Court of Directors of April 23, 1858, section 8 of paragraph 1. page 36.
2 P
[184]