CO882-(2-3) — Page 19

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

LTCO 882

2

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- | COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE. LONDON

and

42

monthly there is no special payment for his Sunday work, and this, I think, should be amended.

14. You observe that the penalties for vagrancy are much severer than in the West Indies. I should wish you to report whether you consider the Regulations which were sanctioned in 1864, on Sir II. Barkly's recommendation, are severer than are required to meet the difficulties against which it was then thought necessary to provide.

15. There ought not to be any difficulty in providing frequent and thorough inspection of all estates in so small an island as Mauritius. You point out that the law in Mauritius only allows, but does not require, the Protector to inspect, and that the visits of the Stipendiary Magistrates have no legal sanction. The first defect you mention was supposed to have been remedied by the recommendation given in 1864 by the Duke of Newcastle to the Governor, to require the Protector to make visits of inspection, and by the arrangements reported by Sir H. Barkly accordingly, under which every estate was to be visited twice a-year by the Stipendiary Magistrate of the district, and once by the Protector: of Emigrants.

16. As, however, the visits of Magistrates, not expressly empowered by law to make an effective examination of the estates and of the coolies, could in no circum- stances fully attain the desired object, and as it is an imperfect arrangement (which you notice) that visits of inspection should be made by the same person who would have to decide cases brought before him in consequence of such suggestion, I request that you will consider and report to me in what manner you are of opinion that inspection, additional to that by the Protector, should be provided for.

17. Your statement that Mr. Beyts has practically ceased to carry out any system of inspection requires full explanation, as the thorough and regular discharge of that most important function cannot be neglected without serious discredit to the Government, as well as to the officer immediately concerned.

18. The absence from the Mauritius laws of the provision which in the West Indies empowers the Governor to remove immigrants from estates which are unhealthy, or where they have been ill-used, is a serious defect, and should be remedied.

19. You remark on the severity of the restrictions and the exceptional obligations to which old immigrants in Mauritius are subjected; if you refer to the correspondence which arose out of Ordinance No. 31 of 1867 you will see that at that time these restrictions, which are unquestionably severe, seemed to be necessary.

20. I shall be glad to receive the further communication which you intimate your intention of making to me on this subject, and hope you will report fully as to their working.

21. 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 worst class of Indians, while the industrious and frugal have no difficulty in securing their return to their native country. I am clearly of opinion that the provision for the payment of back passages should be at once re-established.

22. You will thus see that in many important points I concur with you in thinking that material amendments of the present system are needed; and I have to instruct you to lay this despatch before the Legislative Council to invite their attention to the necessity of taking such immediate action, administrative or legislative, as each case may require.

23. I rely upon the readiness of the Council to adopt all such alterations and amend- ments of the law and procedure relating to Indian immigrants, as the experience obtained in other Colonies has proved to be essential to their welfare. The Council will be aware that such amendments are not enjoined upon the Colony of Mauritius slone, but are a necessary condition of the continued employment of coolie labour in every part of Her Majesty's dominions.

I have, &c.

43

No. 18.

Governor the Hon. Sir A. Gordon to the Earl of Kimberley.-(Received November 18.) (No. 155.) My Lord,

Mauritius, October 17, 1871.

I HAVE had the honour to receive your Lordship's despatch of the 18th of July last, marked Circular,* recominending to my careful consideration certain paragraphs of a See Appendix Report from Her Majesty's Land and Emigration Commissioners which relate to the No. i. benefits which have resulted from an extension of the period of rationing newly-arrived immigrants in Trinidad.

2. Your Lordship is no doubt aware that, in this Colony, immigrants are rationed, not only during the whole period of their first indenture, but also during that of any subsequent engagement.

3. Of the benefits of the rationing system, under proper regulation, I have been long fully sensible; and your Lordship may possibly be acquainted with the efforts ultimately successful-which were made by me to secure its adoption in Trinidad. But I would venture respectfully to call your Lordship's attention to a proviso contained in both the Jamaica and Trinidad Immigration Laws, and which it is, in my opinion, of the very greatest importance to bear in mind when dealing with this question. I mean the proviso which enables the immigrant, after a certain period of service, and with the consent of the Inspecting Officer, to claim the whole of his wages in money. I look on this as the most essential to the proper working of the scheme. It affords an addi- tional incentive to industry on the part of the labourer, it assists in teaching him inde- pendence and self-reliance, and it is a check upon the abuses to which the rationing system is no doubt liable. All who have had practical experience of the working of immigration laws will concur in testifying, that there is no offence against them more impossible of proof than the insufficient delivery of rations.

4. I think also that rationing should, at all events, and under all circumstances, be confined to the first period of indenture.

5. The concluding paragraph of your Lordship's circular, having reference to the extension of return passages to India to immigrants who may have originally served in another Colony, is hardly applicable to Mauritius.

In the first place, isolated as this Colony is, such arrivals are of rare occurrence; and, in the next, as your Lordship is aware, a return passage to India at the expense of the Colony is not here accorded, even to immigrants who have, from the first, engaged to serve in Mauritius, except in cases of confirmed sickness.

(No. 213.) Sir,

No. 19.

I have, &c. (Signed) ARTHUR GORDON.

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

Downing Street, December 13, 1871.

I HAVE received your despatch No. 155 of the 17th October on the question of the issue of rations to coolie immigrants, and the grant of return passages to labourers who may have originally served in another Colony.

I trust I shall shortly be in a position to address you further on this subject.

I have, &c.

(Signed)

No. 20.

KIMBERLEY.

(Signed)

KIMBERLEY.

Mauritius, November 14, 1871.

Governor the Hon. Sir A. Gordon to the Earl of Kimberley.—(Received December 18.) (No. 184.) My Lord,

I HAVE the honour to inclose, for your Lordship's information, a copy of the Protector of Immigrants' digest of the Report of the Stipendary Magistrates' inspections of estates for the half-year ending on the 30th June.

2. The annual Report of the Protector of Immigrants has already been trans- mitted to your Lordship in General Smyth's despatch, No. 16, of the 18th September, but unaccompanied, I believe, by any observations.