CO882-(2-3) — Page 41

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

CO.

Reference -

882

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

2 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

encured

82

apparently have insured the disapprobation of a body for which he entertains so sincere a respect as the Chamber of Agriculture.

This unfavourable opinion he cannot but hope would be materially modified by a more intimate acquaintance with all the circumstancos of the case, and of the motives by which the Government has been actuated, it is not, however, his Excellency's intention to enter into any discussion with the Chamber as to the propriety on expediency of the course, which he has felt it to be his duty on this occasion to adopt.

I have, &c.

Sir,

(Signed) EDWARD NEWTON, Colonial Secretary.

No. 25.

Emigration Commission to Colonial Office.-(Received January 11.)

Emigration Board, January 10, 1872. I HAVE to acknowledge your letter of the 2nd instant enclosing various despatches from the Governor of Mauritius on the subject of coolie immigration in that Colony, and also copies of some despatches from the Earl of Kimberley to the Governor on the same subject.

1

2. The first of Sir A. Gordon's despatches encloses the Protector of Emigrants digest of Stipendiary Magistrate's Reports, for the six months ended 30th June, 1871, and accompanying it by comments on the Protector's Annual Report for 1870. The effect of those comments is to show that great inaccuracies exist in the statistics of the Protector's Report, sufficient to vitiate the favourable conclusions as to the condition of immigrants drawn by the Protector. The Governor illustrates these inaccuracies by Returns of the mortality in various districts, during three years, as appearing on the Returns of the civil status, the Magistrates, and the Medical Inspectors. The result is, that, in the district of Savanne, the first gives the number of deaths at 1,596, the second at 916, and the third at 1,020; while in Plaines Wilhems, and two other districts, the first gives 2,451, the second 1,565, and the third 1,302. The Magistrate's Return, the Governor says, may be looked on as the return made by the planters themselves, and I presume that the Medical Inspectors also derive their information principally from the planters. If so, the reason of the difference between the Civil Status Returns and the others may be conjectured. Any way the difference destroys all confidence in the returns of mortality the Protector has been in the habit of furnishing in his Annual Reports. His other Returns, especially those relating to desertions, arrears of wages, and complaints by masters against servants, and rice versa, appear to be scarcely more trustworthy.

3. In respect to the Protector's remarks on the condition of estates, the Governor repeats what he said in his despatch of 18th August last, that, practically, the Protector has ceased to visit estates, though an allowance of 2001. a-year is by law granted to enable him to do so. And I infer from the manner in which the Protector alludes to the Stipendiary Magistrates' Returns, that neither do they visit estates, but procure the information which is epitomized in the Protector's digest from written answers obtained from managers. The Protector's excuse is that the other duties he has to perform, as President of the Poor Law Board, Member of Council, and latterly Census Commis- sioner, leave him no time to visit estates. The excuse appears to me very insufficient; but there can be no doubt of the propriety of the Governor's suggestion that it should Te taken away by relieving the Protector from such extraneous duties. His primary duty is to the immigrants, and to perform this duty efficiently he ought to have constant opportunities of personal communication with immigrants on estates, and of establishing such relations with them as to encourage them to look upon him as what his title implies, and to resort to him in their difficulties. This cannot be the case if he confines himself to the discharge of his office duties in Port Louis. The Earl of Kimberley having already called for a special report on the discontinuance of the Protector's visits, it is unnecessary to say more on the subject hero.

k. The Governor next refers to the case of an estate in the district of Moka, on which there is neither hospital or medical attendant. From the Protector's Report it appears that there are no less than 280 souls on this estate. How this can be reconciled with the provisions of the Ordinance No. 29, of 1865, is not explained, and appears to me unintelligible. The proprietors allege that they could not obtain the services of a doctor, and that they sent their sick labourers to the Poor Law Hospital at Plaines Willems.

If the It appeared, however, on enquiry, that none had been sent.

83

penaltics of the Ordinance of 1865 had been enforced, no doubt both hospital and medical attendant would have been provided.

No

5. The Governor returns to the subject of the exceptional restrictions on old immigrants, and refers to some regulations, issued under the Ordinance of 1867, even more stringent than the Ordinance itself, which he assumes we have never seen. such regulations have indeed been communicated to us; but judging from the Governor's explanation, it seems clear that they must, in theory at least, be oppressive to the immigrant, though, from having been left incomplete, they have not in practice had their full effect. In regard to the provisions of the Ordinance itself I can add nothing to what I have already said. They have always appeared to me defensible only as a matter of necessity, of the urgency of which the Home Government was obliged to accept the judgment of the local authorities. On this point the instructions in Lord Kimberley's despatch of the 16th ultimo are, for the present, enough.

6. The position of old immigrants, and the feeling entertained towards those who advocate their cause, is, however, brought into greater prominence by Sir A. Gordon's despatch of 17th November, No. 197. A Petition was addressed to him by between 9,000 and 10,000 of these immigrants, praying for a relaxation of the laws against them, and was printed in pamphlet form and circulated, with some hostile criticism on the planters, by a M. de Plevitz. Sir A. Gordon says that the pamphlet, though containing a good deal of exaggeration and many inaccuracies, is not so immoderate in its tone as many similar publications, and that some of its assertions cannot be denied with truth. The indignation, however, which it caused among the planters was intense. The press demanded, of course ineffectually, the immediate prosecution and banishment of M. de Plevitz, and a meeting was held at which it was determined to assault him; a determination which was carried into effect, first by M. Jules Lavoquer, and secondly by M. Merven. Proceedings were, by the Governor's direction, taken against M. Lavoquer, and a fine inflicted on him which was paid at once by subscription, while the stick with which the assault had been committed was presented to him with an inscription. No proceedings appear to have been taken against M. Merven. Eventually, the Governor was questioned, in Council, as to the steps he intended to take to disabuse the Home and`Indian Governments of the false impressions that might be produced by M. de Plevitz' pamphlet. Enclosed in his despatch is the answer he returned, explaining fully and convincingly the grounds on which he had decided to take no such steps. He expresses a hope that Lord Kimberley will approve the way in which he expressed himself on that occasion. There can be but one opinion, that the proceedings of the planters on this occasion, and the feelings they displayed, were highly discreditable to them.

7. In his despatch of 17th November, No. 198, Sir A. Gordon transmits a Resolution of the Chamber of Agriculture asking that, with a view to meet and refute the charges contained in M. de Plevitz' pamphlet, "Her Majesty may be prayed to name a competent Commission to enquire fully and fairly into all the circumstances, and report on the condition of the Indian labourers employed in the sugar cultivation of this Colony." And in his confidential despatch of 10th November the Governor expresses his strong sense of the necessity of such a Commission, and offers sonie suggestions as to its composition. If there could have been a doubt as to the necessity It is, 1 think. of such a Commission, the present correspondence would remove it. impossible to read these despatches, and especially the extracts of the newspapers which Sir A. Gordon encloses, without feeling that at present public opinion in Mauritius exerts a moral (to some extent even a physical) terrorism which makes it impracticable to obtain from the local officials a correct knowledge of the condition of the labouring population. The present planters are the true descendants of those who forty years ago raised almost a revolt on the appointment of Mr. Jeremie to a Judgeship in the Colony. What has occurred leads strongly to the belief that it is neither want of time nor indifference that have led Mr. Beyts gradually to abandon the visits to estates which he was required, in 1864, to make periodically. It may be taken for granted that that portion of his duties was very unpopular, and, as soon as the pressure of the Governor was relaxed, he silently gave way before this unpopularity. There is a passage in Sir A. Gordon's despatch of 21st September, No. 138, which implies that the Protector is not, in his opinion, a man of strong moral courage. I allude to the passage in which he says that the Protector entirely shares his opinion as to the importance of giving back passage to immigrants "although he has not ventured publicly to avow sentiments which would be in the highest degree unpopular in the Colony." No doubt it would be very difficult to find any native of, or habitual resident in, Mauritius, sufficiently free from local influences and careless of local popularity to maintain an

84