CO882-(2-3) — Page 12

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference →

CO.882

2

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

V.

26. But it is in the laws which relate to the condition of the immigrant after his term of indentured service has expired that the greatest difference will be found to exist between those of the West Indies and Mauritius.

27. In the West Indies the immigrant receives, on the expiration of his contract, a certificate of industrial residence, and becomes free to work on his own account, to engage himself to whom he will and as he will, or to re-indenture himself on bounty. In none of the West Indian Colonies, I believe, is the re-indenture of an immigrant lawful before the completion of his previous engagement.

In Demerara' he may, after such completion, re-engage for five years on the receipt of a bounty varying from 25 dollars to 50 dollars.

In Trinidad, under similar circumstances, he may re-engage for one year, on receipt of a bounty of indefinite amount, according to agreement, usually about 50 dollars. But in all these cases such re-indenture is perfectly optional, and the immigrant, after the termination of his contract, is as free a man as any other inhabitant of the Colony.

28. In Mauritius the system is widely different. A similar certificate is given to the immigrant on the completion of the contract, and he is also obliged to procure a ticket, for which the fee of a dollar is charged, or, strictly speaking, for the photograph

attached to it.

But this certificate and ticket do not place the immigrant receiving them in at all the same position as that which is occupied by a man who has obtained a West Indian certificate of industrial residence. If the immigrant in Mauritius has not re-engaged himself before the termination of this contract, which he is permitted and indeed encouraged to do, he must within eight days re-engage himself to the same or some other employer, or prove to the satisfaction of the polices that he has independent means of livelihood.

No bounty is given on re-engagement in Mauritius. If he does not re-engage, and does succeed in proving that he has means of living, he must obtain a police pass, which can only be given at the central police station of the district.

If he fails to comply with either of these conditions he becomes, in the eye of the law, a vagrant, and may be imprisoned with hard labour for twenty-eight days, or, on a second conviction, for nine months.

If at any time he declines to re-engage, and desires to live by free daily labour, he has to pay an annual tax of 11. for the privilege of doing so a privilege which is only to be accorded to a certain limited number in each district. All others who are not already in an independent position must enter into contracts or go to gaol,

Every Indian immigrant in the Colony, as long as he lives, is subject to these restrictions. He must not leave the district" within which he lives without the permis. sion of the police-a permission only to be accorded for a limited period. He must not change his place of abode,' even within the district, without notifying it at the chief office of police of that district; and his house may at any time be entered without warrant by the police, who may arrest any person therein as a vagrant who has not about him all the papers, certificate, ticket, police pass and permit, required by law.

It is forbidden to issue any pass to those who desire to live by manual labour without indenture, unless they have previously taken out a license, for which a fee of 11. has to be paid, and which remains in force for only one year.

They have also to purchase and wear a distinguishing badge.

29. In all the West Indian Colonies an immigrant is entitled, after ten years' resi- dence, to be provided with a return passage to India, if he wishes it, and in some he is allowed to exchange this right for a small grant of land.

30. In Mauritius he cannot claim either of these privileges, except in case of sick- ness, when a return passage may be given by the Protector. If he do not obtain suffi-

Demerara, Ordinance No. 4 of 1864, Sections 62, 63, and 65.

Trinidad, Ordinance No. 13 of 1870, Section 20.

• Mauritius, Ordinance No. 15 of 1852, Section 4.

• Mauritius, Government Notice 166 of 1868, Section 29.

Mauritius, Ordinance No. 81 of 1867, Section 43.

Government Notice 142 of 1869, Section 11.

7 Government Notice 142 of 1860, Section 8.

Ordinance No. 81 of 1867, Section 44.

• Government Notice 166 of 1868, Section 43.

10 Demerara, Ordinanca No. 4 of 1884; Trinidad, Ordinance No. 13 of 1870; Jamaica, Act of 1858;

St. Lucia, Ordinance of 1865; Grenada, Act of 1869.

29

cient wages to enable him to assume an independent position (and this must, of course, always be the exception), the immigrant has practically no option but to remain always an agricultural labourer in Mauritius, with no prospect of returning to India, or of any relief, when too old to obtain work from planters who can procure strong and active hands fresh from India at equally low wages, but what can be afforded by suicide, the poor-house, or the vagrant depot; whilst in the West Indies he has the certainty, at the end of ten years, of becoming himself a small proprietor, or of returning, if he chooses to his own country.

31. Your Lordship will, I hope, understand that I do not attempt, in this despatch, to present a picture of the working of the immigration system in this or any other of the Colonics to which I have referred.

I deal only with the dry provisions of the law itself, and even of this I do not profess to give any detailed account.

It is only on the points where these laws differ, not on those where they agree, that I have touched; and I have confined myself to points of comparative importance, omitting all mention of many divergencies of mere detail, some of which, however, though individually important, are in the aggregate by no means so trivial as would appear at first sight.

(No. 170.) Sir,

No. 12.

I have, &c. (Signed)

ARTHUR GORDON,

The Earl of Kimberley to Governor the Hon. Sir A. Gordon.

Downing Street, October 11, 1871. I HAVE received and read with much interest your despatch No. 135 of the 18th August, in which you draw an able and valuable comparison between the legal aspect of coolie labour in Mauritius, as contrasted with the system prevalent in the West Indian possessions of the Crown.

I regret that those safeguards which in the British West Indies surround the Indian labourer appear to be, to a considerable extent, wanting in the Colony under your Government. I reserve for further consideration the observations which I may have to address to you on the subject.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

KIMBERLEY.

No. 13.

Colonial Office to the Emigration Commissioners.

Gentlemen,

Downing Street, October 13, 1871. WITH reference to previous correspondence respecting the condition of the coolie labourers in Mauritius, I am directed by the Earl of Kimberley to transmit to you a copy of recent correspondence between the Governor of that island and this Depart- ment,1

I am to request you to favour Lord Kimberley with your observations on the subject, which appears to demand serious and early consideration.

I am, &c.

(Signed)

No. 14.

R. G. W. HERBERT.

Governor the Hon. Sir A. Gordon to the Earl of Kimberley.—(Received January 13, 1872.) (No. 188.)

Government House, Mahé, Seychelles, My Lord,

September 2, 1871. IN my despatch No. 135 of the 18th ultimo I purposely confined myself to a recapitulation of the provisions of the different Immigration Laws which, in that despatch, I attempted to compare, and abstained from all comment on the practical working of that now in force in Mauritius.

1 Nos. 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, and 11.

I

[180]