PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference -
TTTTIC.O.882
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE,
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
LONDON
E
196
153rd Article of the Report; but that such have arisen from or are the consequences of their policy, is evident from the petition. It is, perhaps, only natural that one of the members of Council, who might have drawn attention to what was likely to occur from such a policy and did not, should wish to shift the onus from his own shoulder to those of others; but how could the Executive Council know what was taking place with regard to the working of the Ordinance unless it was brought to their notice, and such does not appear to have been the case, rather the contrary, for when a Commission was appointed in 1869 the members reported "all going on well," and proposed even more stringent regulations.
Art. 184.-This is so simply a matter spoken of according to Mr. Fraser's own knowledge, and not according to the evidence, that I think it unnecessary for me to make any comment on it.
Art. 193.-The only assertion I find is that "time has been gained for the settling down into habits of order and industry of the immigrants." Nor can I discover any contradiction between the last paragraph of Article 193 and Article 197, for it is only said "we should have expected crime to show a diminution;" it is not asserted or even inferred that such is the case; on the contrary, it is asserted and inferred that although we should have expected it, our expectations were proved erroneous when compared with the statistics.
Art. 210.-In reply to this I may mention that in the Honourable Mr. Beyts' evidence before the Royal Commissioners, it appears that one man was condemned 28 times, A. 2313. Had Mr. Fraser consulted the return at page 426, he would have seen that 2,5-13 men had been convicted to the Vagrant Depot 5 times and more; 2,123 men 4 times; 4,883 men 3 times between the years 1884 and 1871; and it must be borne in mind that, with the exception of Port Louis, vagrants are only sent to that depôt from the gaols in the country districts, when those gaols have over the number considered necessary for Government works-4. 2105.
Art. 243. On this subject I shall merely quote what the Honourable Mr. Antelme says in his Report, Article 124: "Enfin plusieurs autres ont réclamé leur passage de retour dans leur pays, affirmant qu'au Depôt des Immigrants dans l'Inde, on leur avait donné l'assurance que le Gouvernement de cette Colonie accordait cette faveur à tous les immigrants à l'expiration de leur résidence industrielle." And again at Article 221: "J'ai déjà dit qu'un certain nombre d'Indiens questionnés par la Commission, ont réclamé contre l'abolition des passages de retour, &c., &c.”
Art. 271.-No one can be astonished at the Honourable Mr. Fraser dissenting from return passages, after the position assumed by his party on the subject in Council, though before such a position had been taken up it would have been very difficult to say on which side he would have ranged himself. His dissent, as he gives no reasons for it, and reserves his opinions for a future time, is at present unanswerable.
I have, &o. (Signed) F. T. BLUNT, Captain.
[17]
To the Private Secretary
d
to his Excellency the Governor.
AA
No. 55.
48
13.
35
75
Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Kimberley.——(Received October 18.)
(No. 290. Miscellaneous.) My Lord,
Mauritius, September 20, 1872. IN compliance with the wish of Lieutenant-Colonel O'Brien, Inspector-General of Police, I forward to your Lordship a letter which he has addressed to the Royal Commissioners of Inquiry.
2. I shall not enter upon a general examination of the contents of this document, as it will no doubt be fully dealt with by the Commission.
3. Your Lordship will, however, perceive that in the 5th, 8th, 32nd, 40th, 44th and 50th paragraphs of this letter charges of gross partiality, as members of the Police Inquiry Commission, are more or less distinctly alleged against the Honourable Mr. Justice Gorrie and Captain Blunt, late Acting Inspector-General of Police, and a distinct accusation preferred against them of improper suppression and concealment of documents in their possession.
4. I thought it right at once to communicate these charges to the parties con- cerned. I have the honour to inclose copies of their replies, which your Lordship will, I think, concur with me in considering as clear, simple, and conclusive.
5. Your Lordship will also probably agree with me in regretting that the
197
Inspector-General of Police should have preferred charges so serious against a Judge of the Supreme Court on such insufficient grounds, and that he should not before publicly imputing dishonourable and dishonest conduct to Captain Blunt (with whom, as Adjutant of the Police Force he is in almost daily communication), have thought proper to ask him for an explanation which could so easily have been given, and which would have been so satisfactory and complete as effectually to prevent the accusation being made.
I have, &c. (Signed)
Inclosure 1 in No. 55.
ARTHUR GORDON.
To Her Majesty's Royal Commissioners appointed to make inquiries into the Condition of the Indian Labourers in the Island of Mauritius.
Gentlemen,
AGREEABLE to your instructions, I have the honour to submit my reasons for disagreeing with the Report of the Police Inquiry Commission.
2. The conclusions arrived at by that Commission I maintain are not borne out by the evidence brought forward, while there is ample further proof available to show that though, as must necessarily take place in starting a novel law of the character of Ordinance 31 of 1867, a few individual cases of hardship did occur, such as that noted in Answer 569, the action of the police was neither "arbitrary" nor "ill judged."
3. The police have but to give the laws of the Colony their full effect; and it was their duty to see that their provisions were enforced.
P. C. R. 241, 569.
4. I submit that the orders in the Department have had no other end than to G. O.'s, viz., 5 of make the Ordinance a protection to the honest, and as little irksome to the industrious 22nd April, 1864; population as possible.
18, of 10th May, 1867; 38, of 8th
5. The attention of the Commission was drawn to selected Memoranda and general June, 1869; 64, of orders having but one object, as will be seen by Annexure A. As regards the former, 18th Sept., 1869: I would observe that they had no effect generally throughout the Department, and are 67, of 6th Oct., mostly a portion of those remarks made by me on the weekly reports, sometimes of one 1869; 76, of 20th district, sometimes of another, where neglect of duty, contraventions, and all sorts of 23rd April, 1870. departmental detail are equally commented on, so that the "great desire manifested"
Oct., 1869; 28, of
Annexure A.
N.B.-See Index.
or "excess of zeal" (255) sanctioned by the general orders issued by the Inspector- P. C. R. 159, 255. General, as adverted to, resolves itself into two orders of mine and one of tenens, promulgated at a time when vagrancy was rife, and the subject of universal Annexures ...---
Locum my complaint, while, though in the possession of the Commission, it would appear that a file B. C. D. of other general orders, which was handed in to one of the members, was not submitted E., to all the others, and the file itself when returned to my office, was found minus a page (31) on which one of the principal instructions as to the modus agendi of the police was G. O. 28, of 23rd laid down.
6. From the tenor of those orders, I trust you will see that the charge of a P. C. R. 15it.
April, 1870. "manifested desiro for the arrest of Indians," and, therefore, the encouragement of the P. C. R. 151. "unscrupulous use of their powers" by this Department is unfounded-a desire that I 1470. beg to repudiate, and from which I feel sure my antecedents and long residence in India, where I am well known, will exonerate me. The punishments recorded as
inflicted on men who have used violence, not, however, in "spite," or who may P. 20, A. 142. "have caused a great deal of annoyance and vexation" to the immigrants, establish 151. that, in the cases brought to my notice, such practices had never my countenance or sanction.
A. 2179.
2181.
7. While on the subject of this paragraph 151, let me examine the evidence on which it is based. Answer 142 certainly gives no grounds for the assertion contained. A. 142, 134, tři, therein. Answer 154 has evidently no connection with the Labour Law. Answer 161 175. is merely a question of the opinion of one whose duties have never brought him in contract directly or indirectly with the working of the Ordinance; indiscriminate examination of papers never having been the rule in the Department. Answer 175 cites two instances; in one the man was condemned by the Magistrate, and it is presumablo that in his opinion the necessity for the arrest existed, or whence the condemnation ? The second you will remark caused prompt attention on the part of
the Inspector-General of Police, and none of those answers substantiated a case of "spite," or afforded any grounds, I conceive, for the assumption of such a charge. To Answers 318 and 324, I reply that the police but carried out the orders of the military 318 to 324.
[134]
3 E