PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
Reference-
TLC.O.882
2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-
COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO
224
upon their
9. As soon as the term of his indenture expires, the immigrant must, if he wishes to continue in the Colony, take out a "portrait-ticket" from the Immigration Office, and is charged 2s. for the photograph which is affixed thereto. If he loses the original it costs him 11. 28. to replace it, and, pending the receipt of the duplicate, he must take out a permit to work," at a further cost of 58. He is bound to produce his portrait- ticket on demand by any officer or constable of police, under penalty of a fine of 21. or seven days' imprisonment.
Mauritius are subjected to the most vexatious and unnecessary restraints personal liberty.
10. If he is not under engagement by written contract of service, he must also have a police pass, which he is bound to take out within eight days of the expiry of his term of industrial residence. Should he fail to produce this pass on demand, he is liable to a fine of 21. or seven days' imprisonment, without prejudice to any further punishment to which he may be liable for vagrancy. The first duplicate of any such pass costs him 2s., any subsequent replacement, 4s. A new pass must be taken out on change of residence or of occupation, under the same penalty for default as is imposed for non-production of the pass on demand. But this pass cannot be obtained by any "old immigrant" who declares that he lives on the wages of daily labour or the proceeds of job work, unless he produces a license. For this license he has to 12.
pay annually, and it must be exhibited and renewed under the same penalties as apply to the police pass.
11. If, on the other hand, the immigrant re-engages under a contract of service, he gives up his ticket to his employer, and receives in return a certificate of engagement from the Stipendiary Magistrate. This certificate he can be called on at any time to produce, and he is "in practice" liable to be arrested, "if he has not a written "The old permission from his employer," to account for his absence from the estate. immigrant," says the Report, "must at various stages be provided with other documents upon which it is unnecessary to dwell," but for each of which a fee is levied. He cannot even leave the Colony and return, at his own charge, to India, without paying 28. for a passport.
12. By Section 48 of the Ordinance of 1867, he may be arrested without warrant if he is "found in a district where he has no residence, or in any house or premises, and is A hawker cannot for purposes unable to give a satisfactory reason for his being there."
of trade pass the bounds of the district in which he resides, nor can an "old immigrant," resident in one district, visit a friend in another without an endorsement on his pass from an Inspector of Police.
13. Under warrant from a magistrate, the police may "at any time of day or night enter any premises where any immigrant is employed or resides, to ascertain whether such immigrant is under contract of service, or has his ticket and police pass." The Report shows that this section was grossly abused, and raids popularly known as
vagrant hunts" instituted under cover of its provisions.
14. The penalties for "vagrancy" were excessively severe: twenty-eight days imprisonment for the first offence, hard labour being "added," apparently without warrant of law, "by the Stipendiary Magistrates." After two or more convictions within two years, imprisonment for not less than six nor more than nine months might be awarded, and at the end of such imprisonment, if the employer of the immigrant could not be found, the latter might be "employed on public works" for three months longer, and then sent for allotment to a new master. "The best comment we can make on this provision," observes the majority of the Commission, "is that, although carried out previous to 1867, the present Superintendent has declined the responsibility of applying it."
15. What constitutes “vagrancy" is not altogether clear. But the clause of the law of 1867, which prescribed an enquiry by the Immigration Officer before an immigrant was condemned as a vagrant, seems to have been systematically disregarded by the magistracy. That the law thus constituted was not left unenforced, Section 5 of the Report of the Commission amply demonstrates.
"
16. And while subjected to the rigours of this legislation, the "old immigrants lost the aid to which they are properly entitled at the hands of the Protector of Emigrants. The culpable neglect and apathy of Mr. Beyts suffered the Immigration Office to be, in the words of the Report, "transformed from an office where the immigrants may come freely for advice and assistance, into a department by means of which fees are levied from the immigrants, in addition to the ordinary taxation paid by law." As we have been informed by the inclosures of your Grace's despatch that Mr. Beyts has neglected altogether his duty of inspecting estates, the only means by which he could effectually protect the interests of immigrants still under indenture,
225
and as he appears to have delegated even the task of levying fees upon “old immigrants" to his subordinates, we fail to see in what direction the "experience, capacity, and unquestioned activity," attributed to him in the Report, have made themselves manifest.
17. It is true that the Report of the Commission deals almost exclusively with the grievances of the so called "old immigrants," and does not touch upon the questions affecting the condition of immigrants still under their first contract of service, noticed in the papers received with your Grace's despatch above cited. But when we read the accounts of the oppressive treatment to which the "old immigrants" are subjected, we cannot help fearing that there may probably be ample foundation for other complaints that have been made. These, however, have, we presume, already been under investigation by the Royal Commission, and we need not further allude to them at present.
18. Your Grace desired that we should "withdraw, in accordance with the wish of the Earl of Kimberley, 'the privilege of recruiting immigrants from any Colony which does not adopt all the provisions determined by Her Majesty's Government to be needed for the protection and welfare of the Coolies.""
•
•
·
•
19. In stating that we shall have no hesitation in carrying out these instructions, whenever the proper time arrives, we take the opportunity of pointing out that the responsibility for deciding whether proper measures for the protection of emigrants have been taken rests primarily and directly on the Government of India. This responsibility is distinctly imposed by Section 57 of the Indian Emigration Act (7 of 1871), which we extract in the margin. A similar power is reserved to the Governor- General in Council in the case of emigration to the French Colonies by Article XXVI of the Convention of the let July, 1861. The duty thus imposed upon the Government of India cannot be evaded.
*
•
•
20. We are not in a position to judge what difficulties may tend the requisite alterations of system, but we feel it our duty to state that if we do not, within a reasonable time, receive complete information which shall satisfy us that effectual measures have been taken to remove the abuses which have been brought to light, and to ensure in future the proper treatment of all classes of immigrants, we shall, under the present powers vested in us by law, be obliged to declare that all emigration to Mauritius from India shall cease. With regard especially to the class of "old immigrants," in respect of whom we have received ample information in the Report of the Police Enquiry Commission, we desire to say that we shall not be satisfied with anything short of the abrogation of all measures which have been framed and administered at the expense of this class for the benefit of other classes of the community. We enclose copy of a lettert which we have caused to be written to the Government of Mauritius on this whole question, as it appeared right that no time should be lost in communicating to that Government the comclusions which we have formed.
21. The report of the Commission forcibly illustrates the necessity for the establishment of a system under which we shall be kept thoroughly acquainted with the actual condition of Her Majesty's Indian subjects who may have emigrated to British or foreign Colonies. But on this question, which does not concern Mauritius alone, we hope to address your Grace in a separate despatch at an early date.
We have, &c. (Signed)
NORTHBROOK.
NAPIER OF MAGDALA. JOHN STRACHEY.
R. TEMPLE.
H. W. NORMAN.
A. HOBHOUSE..
E. C. BAYLEY.
• «Whenever the Governor-General in Council has reason to believe that, in any place to which emigration is lawful under this Act, proper measures have not been taken for the protection of emigrants immediately on their arrival in such place, or during their residence therein, or for their safe return to India, or to provide a retarò passage to India for any such emigrants at or about the time at which they are entitled to such return passage, the Governor-General in Council may, by notification published in the "Gazette of India," declare that emigration to such place shall cease and be prohibited from a certain day to be specified in the notification.”
+ Dated July 13, 1872.
[134]
3 M