CO882-(2-3) — Page 20

गय गण

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

TICO 882

2

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

41

3. After having so recently and at such length addressed your Lordship with respect to immigration, I am reluctant to trouble you again with reference to that subject.

In forwarding the present digest, however, I cannot avoid making a few remarks, not only upon it, but also upon the annual Report previously submitted to your Lordship.

That Report although undoubtedly able, and in its conclusions on the whole satisfactory, contains some statements in which I cannot altogether agree, and some assertions which are I fear erroneous.

4. The Census returns which have been received since the date of the Report, prove the figures which are contained in the 20th and seven following paragraphs of the Report to have been erroneous, the population being found to be 12,061 short of the figures given in paragraphs 19 and 20. Upon these figures, of course, all the other calculations are based, and the whole of the ratios of mortality require rectification accordingly.

I have already expressed my want of reliance on the statistical statements which are made in this Colony, and, in my despatch No. 118 of the 28th July, I have shown how little confidence is to be placed in the returns with respect to suicides. I have nearly as little in the returns of the mortality on sugar estates.

I have made, with the assistance of my private secretary, a minute and very laborious comparison of the returns on this subject for every estate in the Colony for the last six years, as made respectively by the Civil Status Office, the Stipendiary Magistrates, and the Medical Inspector, and I find that they hardly, if ever, agree.

In my despatch No. 138 of the 21st September, I gave an illustration from the district of Savanne of the curious similarity between the returns of sickness, and mortality out of hospital, on the estates. I will take that same district as an illustration

in this case also.

::

::

In 1868 the mortality on the estates of that district was—

According to Civil Status Returns

According to the Magistrate (the Magistrale's Returns are really furnished by the planters, and may be looked on as their return)

According to the Medical Inspector

In 1869-

Civil status

Magistrate

Medical Inspector

In 1870-

Civil status

Magistrate

Medical Inspector

For the first six months of 1871-

Medical Inspector

Civil status

Magistrate

:::

:::

:::

:::

590

291

303

2:

390

224

183

::

:::

:::

:::

;

318

212

268

298

219

266

1,396

946

1,020

The result of such investigations can only be to cast doubt and uncertainty upon all returns of this description.

Lest it should be thought that the district of Savanne has been specially singled out, I give the result from two or three others also, and for the smallest district in the Colony I give the estates in detail, to show that the divergence extends to minute particulars, and cannot be due to any different system of numeration, as the Civil Status Return, though invariably the highest in the aggregate, is occasionally lower than the other two in regard to particular estates.

5. I am inclined to doubt whether the assertion made in paragraph 26 of the Protector's Report, that there have been large withdrawals from the sugar estates, can in a literal sense be accepted to its full extent. It would not appear to me that the estates individually employ fewer men, but that there are fewer estates now employing labour, as stated in paragraph 24. The number of estates in 1869 was 219, and in 1870 only 215. A difference of four estates would not represent a difference of 3,000 men, but it would go a long way towards it. The number of catates in 1865 was 254.

6. In the 80th paragraph the Protector states that the camps and hospitals which

45

were not in a satisfactory state were ordered to be set aright, and that he proposed to ascertain by personal inspection whether these defects have been removed. This inten- tion, I am sorry to say, has not been carried into effect, or, at least, only to a very limited extent.

I mentioned, in my despatch No. 188, that the Protector had, by my special direc- tion, visited one estate during the present year; a visit, which resulted in a recommen. dation by the Protector that the owner of that estate should be prosecuted for the ill-treatment of his immigrants. Since that time, in consequence of a wish expressed by me that he should resume the duty of inspection, he has visited twelve estates, all situated in the district of Grand Port; but I do not find that any of these were among the number referred to in the paragraph in question.

The Protector of Immigrants is reported by Sir H. Barkly, in his despatch No. of 1868, as visiting every estate in the island, "at least once a year," and he receives by Ordinance a travelling allowance of 2001. per annum for so doing. Practically, however, he does not habitually visit.

He has during the present year visited 13 out of the 214 estates of the Colony. He has no record or memoranda to show what estates were visited last year, but he informs me that he made "several " visits during its course.

The Protector states that the other duties imposed on him as President of the Poor Law Commission and Member of Committees of Council, and latterly as Census Commissioner, prevents his attending to this duty.

I cannot but think it would be well to relieve him of some of these extraneous functions.

In connection with this point of inspection I may observe, that it appears from the half-yearly digest now forwarded (and indeed it had previously come to my knowledge) that one estate (Union), in the district of Moka, not only has no hospital, but has not even had one, and has not for many years had any medical attendant.

The proprietors have always expressed their inability to obtain the services of a doctor, but undertook to send any sick labourers to the Poor Law Hospital at Plaines Wilhems, about 11 miles distant.

I find, however, on inquiry, that not a single patient from this estate has been admitted to that hospital during the present year.

These facts are mentioned in the Protector's Digest herewith transmitted.

7. In the 32nd paragraph of the annual Report it is stated that the number of unarrested deserters continued declining, and that the total number was only 1,643.

The replies made by the planters to the Circular to which allusion is here made, report that 652 desertions have taken place during the first six months of 1871 alone.

I find it difficult to reconcile these figures.

8. The Reports of the Stipendiary Magistrates, referred to in paragraph 83, do not, I fear, give a very definite idea of the arrears due upon estates. They only profess to report the arrears due at the time when their visit is made; only two months' or one month's wages, or less, may then be due, but no report is made as to the interval at which the last pay-day succeeded that immediately preceding, nor is there any security as to the time which may elapse before another pay-day arrives. The date of the Magistrate's visit is always known beforehand, and it is of course very seldom that he will be allowed to find five months' wages due on any estate.

9. In their Report for 1869, Her Majesty's Land and Emigration Commissioners observe that the increase in the number of men employed by Job Contractors is “for obvious reasons undesirable."

I think it, therefore, probable that they will learn with regret that whilst the number of labourers employed under ordinary indenture has decreased from 68,070, in 1888, to 65,193, in 1870, the number employed by job contractors had risen from 3,929, in 1868, to 5,050, in 1870, and that during the first six months of 1871 had yet further increased to 5,619, whilst the number of other indentured labourers had sank to 68,279.

10. It will be observed that, in the 87th paragraph, the Protector makes use of a hypothetical form of expression, and I fear that it must be admitted that the returns referred to, highly satisfactory as they undoubtedly are, do not afford a perfectly accurate criterion as to the relations existing between the employers and employed.

In the first place, they are not altogether correct; the Protector having inadver tently contrasted the complaints of 1808 against the convictions of 1870; in the next place, 1868 was an altogether abnormal year, the effects of the fever and hurricane having produced wide-spread disaster and general disorganization, whilst convictions for vagrancy have been included in the returns for 1869, and not in those for 1870. If

[160]

N