CO882-(2-3) — Page 363

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TILICO.

.882

2PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

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

124

he advocated the immediate adoption of this Resolution now instead of waiting for a more convenient season,

He would only add that he cordially concurred with his honourable friend the Protector in questioning the propriety of the free return passage accorded to vaga. bondism, and as entirely dissented from the doctrine of those who desire to make a free use of that provision of the law. Let honourable members beware; it would be a penalty to be banished from Mauritius; he supposed they looked on it as a punishment to all, not as, in fact it was, a boon much desired by many.

What? If a poor man who had laboured long and honestly, but only earned just enough to maintain himself and family, came to the Protector and asked for a return passage, was he to be told: "No, I cannot give it you. You are too well conducted and respectable. Get into jail, go and rob or beg. Break the laws then I will give you what you wish.”

To state such a thing was to show that the provision was one which was open to grave objection. He believed the Protector had only twice used' it during the past twelve months.

The Honourable Mr. Raoul then withdrew his amendment.

The Secretary to the Council having read the Resolution, the Council divided, when there were for the Resolution 9; against, 9.

The votes being equal his Excellency declared in favour of the Resolution. The Resolution was then declared to be carried.

The Honourable Mr. Naz requested that it might be put on the Minutes that the two absent members would have voted against the Resolution had they been present.

His Excellency assented, and the Council adjourned.

INSPECTORS OF IMMIGRANTS.

Report of Immigration Committee, May 28, 1872.

The Honourable the Protector of Immigrants, Chairman.

**

C. Antelme.

V. Naz.*

"

Read a letter from the Honourable the Protector of Immigrants, dated 18th May, 1872, representing the necessity of his having further assistance in the Immigration Department, so that he may be able to supply Her Majesty's Commissioners, as quickly and as fully as is desirable, with all the informations which they require, and suggesting the appointment of a third Inspector of Immigrants under Ordinance No. 34 of 1871, so that any one of the three Inspectors may be vested with the power of acting as the Protector's Deputy in the Immigration Office whenever the Protector may have to absent himself.

As an alternative course the Protector suggests that a Deputy Protector be appointed for the time during which the additional assistance will be required in the management of the Immigration Department.

Resolved-That in the opinion of this Committee it is advisable that an officer be appointed, on a salary of 4007. per annum, to assist the Protector during the time when his Department will require further assistance for the purpose hereabove mentioned, and that such officer be empowered to act under the Protector's instructions as his Deputy, whenever the Protector finds it necessary.

II. N. D. BEYTS.

(Signed)

No. 39.

Governor the Hon. Sir A. H. Gordon, K.C.M.G., to the Earl of Kimberley.—(Received

·

(No. 102, Miscellaneous.) My Lord,

July 1.)

THE accompanying protest against the Resolution Government on the 21st instant, though dated on the at the very last moment before the closing of the mail.

Mauritius, May 31, 1872.

passed by the Council of

20th, has only reached me

I have barely had time to read, I have no time to comment on it, but I will not

125

deprive your Lordship of the advantage which its authors may consider will be derived from its being placed before you at the same time as the Resolution, although necessarily unaccompanied by any observations of my own.

I have, &c. (Signed)

Inclosure in No. 89.

Reasons for Dissent.

ARTHUR GORDON.

• Printed papers re-

spreting discontinmaken

of retuva passagon. Reports of Immigra-

January 9, 1850,

Committee of

WE, the Undersigned, inofficial members of Council, beg to record our dissent from the Resolution concerning return passages, moved by his Excellency the para. 16, 17, 18, 19, Governor, at the meeting of the 21st instant, for the following among other reasons: 20, 21, and 22,

page &; of Feb. 26,

and 9, page 151

1. Because many of the evils and prejudicial consequences which formerly 1831, para. 5. 6, 7, 8, resulted for the Colony and the immigrants themselves, from the right to a free of March 23, 1851, return passage (recorded in the papers mentioned in the margin), and which led No. 11 of October to the withdrawal of that right in 1853, after full consideration by three successive 1 page 18 and 30. Secretaries of State (Earl Grey, Sir John Pakington, and the Duke of Newcastle), despatches, No. 12 of Governor Higginson's by the then Emigration Commissioners, the Court of Directors, and the Governor- April 15, 1851, General of India in Council, would still, to a great extent, result again for the Colony Dember 3, 1852, and the immigrants, from the granting of that right to future immigrants.

page 30; No. 417 of

Page 33.

2. Because it was settled in 1853, with the concurrence of the Home and Indian Raport of Immigration Authorities, that it was a question for this Colony to determine whether the right Committee of Feb. 26, to a free return passage "was indispensable to induce the immigrants to quit India," Gornor Higginson's 1851, par. 6, page 16. and "whether the discontinuance of such right would check the emigration of labourers despatch of Dec. 8, from India or not."

1852, par. 4, pagu 34. Report of Court of

Page 36,

3. Because since 1853 upwards of 150,000 male, and of 60,000 female coolies Diesctors of April 23, have emigrated to Mauritius without the inducement of a free return passage, and the 3 of par. 1, Colony has been able to obtain from India the supply of labour which it required. So that the experience of those nineteen years has conclusively proved that a free return passage is not an indispensable inducement to the intending emigrant.

4. Because the employers of labour in Mauritius are almost unanimous in considering that other advantages are to be offered, if necessary, to induce the number of labourers who may be required to emigrate to this Colony; and that the right to a free return passage, on account of the many objections against it, should only be offered to the required emigrants as a last resource, and after other fair and equitable inducements shall have failed,

Į

4

of March 5, 1852,

5. Because the discontinuance of the right to a free return passage for the coolie Report of Protector of emigrating to Mauritius, whilst it continued to be insisted on in favour of the Indian Balgat at Calentta, emigrating to the West Indies, was done with full consideration at the time, there par. 3. par 28, being very little direct trade between India and the West Indies, and the distance path of Govern- being very great, the cost of the passage would be excessive, and the immigrants Governor-General of wishing to return might not meet with ships whilst the intercourse between Mauritius India, of March 24, and India is incessant, and the cost of passage very much less.

6. Because the alleged difference between the cost of the return passage during the six years from 1847 to 1852, and the cost thereof now, is not at all a conclusive argument in favour of the re-establishment of a right to a free return passage to take effect ten years hence, as—

The cost may diminish in the interval.

ment of Bengal to

1852, par. 4. page 27.

quoted by Emigration

(2.) We are informed that the average of 11. 7. Od. then paid by the immigrant Letter of Mr. Catral, did not include his food, which was not supplied by the ship, whilst now, ships carrying Comisioners in their immigrants have to comply with all the requirements of the Imperial Passengers' Report of Sept. 18, Acts, and to supply food, medical care, &c.

1852, page 22.

(3.) The rate of wages having since increased here, an immigrant who now earns Report of Mr. Caird, from 7 to 9 rupees per month, besides food, lodging, and medical care, supplied by his of Mark 11. 1859, employer, may save the present cost of his return passage in about the same time pr. 4, page 19. as the immigrant who, in 1852, was computed to earn 5 rupees per month.

(4.) The actual rate of the return passage, though taken into account at the time,

was only one of the secondary motives for which the change was made.

(5.) The number of immigrants who have annually left the Colony during the last ten years, paying themselves the various rates of passage then ruling, has, taking into account the much lesser number of immigrants introduced, continued to be proportionally about the same as it was before 1858.

[134]

2 K