CO882-(2-3) — Page 341

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference -

TTTTTIC.O. 882

| | | | |

2

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

78

The true figures, in my opinion, were therefore 12,134 for 1868, 6,288 for 1869, and 1,951 for 1870. But, in point of fact, I find that, after deducting the difference between the complaints and convictions of 1868, another and much larger deduction must be made, as under the head "Other Charges" (i.e., other than desertion, illegal absence, production of false papers, insubordination, &o.), at least 6,000 cases of vagrancy have been included.

The true numbers, therefore, are, for 1868, 6,134; 1869, 6,288; 1870, 4,954; instead of 14,875, 8,152, and 4,954, as given in the Protector's Reports.

When it is further remembered that the number of engaged servants has diminished since 1868, the diminution of convictions, though considerable, is by no means what was first supposed, nor such as to excite much surprise. I should add, however, that the number of convictions under the head of "Other Charges" for 1870 is so dispro- portionately large from two districts that, although I have not yet ascertained the fact, I cannot but suspect the vagrancy cases have been there included, and that a reduotion of from 400 to 500 should be made on the total for 1870 also.

14. It is also not unworthy of observation that the great decrease in the number of convictions for crime before the District Courts, to which Mr. Antelmo refers (paragraph 156 bis), as a proof of the beneficial effects of the Labour Law, appears to have chiefly taken place between 1866 and 1867, i.c., before the Labour Law, which only came into operation in May 1808, was in existence.

:

15. I do not find any essential difference in the view taken by the majority of the Commission and Mr. Antelme as to the action of the police under the Ordinance, although the tone of the two Reports on that subject is very different.

16. As regards the administration of the Law by the Stipendiary Magistrates, both Reports agree in the conclusion that the Law is differently administered by different Magistrates, and that its operation should be rendered more uniform by its interpre- in all cases in a liberal spirit towards the immigrant; but the Report of the majority may perhaps be considered to convey some degree of implied censure on the Magistrates for this divergence, in which Mr. Antelmo evidently does not concur.

17. There is, however, one point connected with the action of the Stipendiary Magistrates on which the majority and Mr. Antelme come to a directly opposite conclusion. The majority are of opinion that, in punishing immigrants found with a ticket but without a pass as vagrants, instead of previously sending them to the Immi gration Office for enquiry, as directed by Article 46 of the Law of 1867, the Magistrates have committed an infraction of the Law, although this course would appear to be sanctioned by the regulations of 1889, if those regulations can be supposed to overrido the Law.

This opinion that the provisions of the Law have been disregarded is supported by the testimony of the Procureur-General, who says (A 1808):-"In my opinion, the Ordinance is just and the regulations are unjust." According to the Ordinance, if a man bound to show his pass does not show it, he is not a priori considered as an offender worthy of punishment; he is considered to be a proper subject for enquiry." The Protector also says (A. 1980) :—“ It was doubtless meant that they should first be sent to the Immigration Depôt for enquiries, and if they be not it is in violation of the Law."

The 5th article of the first paragraph of the Report of Mr. Sholto Douglas, who drafted the law (p. 427), would appear to show that this was, in fact, his intention in its preparation. He speaks of this article as one "to make provision enabling immigrants who have lost their papers, or who are vagrants, to find shelter and employment at the Immigration Dépôt."

18. Mr. Antelme, however, has formed a contrary conclusion, and thinks that the provisions of Article 48 of the Labour Law of 1867 were intended only to apply to those whose vagrancy was doubtful, as otherwise he holds (paragraph 2141), that “il saute aux yeux que le vagabondage serait legalisé par un tel système."

10. If the view of the majority be correct, the duty of investigation into the alleged vagrancy of an immigrant would fall to the Protector, whilst the power of punishment remains exclusively with the Stipendiary Magistrate.

20. As regards the management of the immigrant depôt, after making several strictures on its arrangements, with respect to which Mr. Antelme offers no opinion, the majority recommend that fees should be paid henceforth only at the Treasury. From this suggestion, made originally, I believe, by Mr. Fraser before his departure, and subsequently adopted by his colleagues, Mr. Antelme dissente, on grounds which appear to me to be woll worthy of serious attention.

21. Both the majority and Mr. Antelme concur in recommending the restoration

79

to immigrants of the right to free return passages to India, after a certain residence in the Colony, subsequent to the expiration of their industrial service.

22. As regards particular alterations in the existing law, Mr. Antelme concurs with the majority in recommending the abolition of the job labourers' licence, and of the restrictions on the free locomotion of hawkers and carriers, and the reduction of many of the fees now charged, though not, in all cases, a reduction equal in amount to that suggested by the majority. IIe also concurs with them in the recommendation that the Stipendiary Magistrates should sit daily, and that only certain selected constables should be authorized to demand immigrants' papers; and though he does not propose to accord to old immigrants a liberty of locomotion through the Colony to the full extent proposed by the majority, hé recommends its considerable extension in all cases, and suggests that the Protector and the Stipendiary Magistrates should be empowered, in cases which they deemed deserving of such an indulgence, to accord a "definitive pass" not requiring renewal, and available for the whole Colony.

28. The majority, in addition, recommend the repeal of the provisions of the law authorizing domiciliary visits, and which render the non-production, on demand, of his ticket by the immigrant a punishable offence; the discontinuance of the portrait ticket as a matter of obligation and several minor modifications of details in the existing

law.

24. It will thus be seen that in their general scope and conclusions there is a large amount of substantial agreement between the two Reports, and that their divergence is chiefly one of degree, rather than of principle. At a first and superficial glance, the difference between them, no doubt, appears considerable; but the more they are examined the greater the agreement in almost all essential points will appear. That which chiefly leads to their apparent contradiction is their wide dissimilarity of tone, the report of the majority dwelling especially on the points in which the law has failed, and on the mistakes and abuses which their inquiry has brought to light; whilst that of Mr. Antelme seeks rather to explain the original necessity of the law, the good it has in his opinion effected, and the facts which may excuse some errors in its administration.

、

28. Under present circumstances, and pending the report of the Royal Commis- sion, it is unnecessary, and would, I think, be unbecoming for me to express opinions as to the inquiries and conclusions of the Commission. Your Lordship will, I hope, however, agree with me in thinking that their work has been carefully and well performed, and that the time and trouble General Smyth and his colleagues have devoted to their preliminary investigation, and to the preparation of their report, merit your Lordship's thanks and approbation, as well as my own; nor can the facts they have collected, and the mass of evidence given before them, fail to prove useful to the Royal Commission.

26. I wish to direct your Lordship's particular attention to Sections 21 to 61, and 186 to 206 of the Report, and to the evidence of Mr. Colin, pp. 294-300.

27. I also think it right, whilst refraining from discussing the Report generally,

to add that, if my West Indian experience does not greatly mislead me, any excessive lowering of the price of duplicate tickets and passes might be attended with a traffic in these articles of a very mischievous character.

I have, &c.

(Signed) ARTHUR GORDON,

P.S.-Since writing this despatch I have received from Mr. Beyts, the Protector of Immigrants, a protest against the conclusions of the Report with respect to the internal management of the Immigration Department. I have not had time to read this protest, much less to examine or report on it; but I think it right at once to inform your Lordship of its existence, and shall forward it, with my own remarks, by the ensuing mail.

No. 29.

Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Kimberley.—(Received June 4.) (No. 148. Miscellaneous.) My Lord,

Mauritius, May 2, 1872. I FIND that no copy of the messages, with which I submitted your Lordship's despatches, No. 210 of the 16th December, and No. 16 of the 19th January, to the