CO885-(20-21) — Page 450

36

cause

33

2. I presume that the Attorney-General's remarks quoted in paragraph 2 refer to some version of the Bill other than that enclosed in your despatch, as the only modi- fications of section 127 of the Immigration Ordinance of 1891 which appear to be made by this Bill are the insertion of the word "reasonable" before in sub-section (1), and the insertion of the words "if the immigrant is arrested in the night" between "Immigration Agent or " and " to the nearest Police Station in sub-section (2). There is no reference to deserter," the term reproduced in sub-section (1) being "absent from his plantation without leave."

3. I should be glad to be informed whether this is so.

44

I have, &c.,

L. HARCOURT.

>>

37

employer requests their return in the manner prescribed by the law, and are not taken back to their plantations as a matter of course. practice, the law should in future be carried out.

If this has not been the

10994

No. 30.

FIJI.

I have, &c.,

L. HARCOURT.

سا

22827

SIR,

6.

No. 28.

BRITISH GUIANA.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

(Confidential.)

(Received 11 July, 1911).

[Answered by No. 29.]

Government House, Georgetown, Demerara, 13th June, 1911. In reply to your confidential despatch of the 16th May, I have the honour to state that in the Bill originally drafted by the Attorney-General the word deserter" was included in the proposed amendment of Section 127 (1) of the Immigration Ordinance, 1891. The section as then written read as follows: "Every Constable may without warrant stop any immigrant whom he may have reasonable cause to suspect of being a deserter from his plantation and may require him, &c., &c."

2. The remarks of the Attorney-General were made upon the draft Bill before it was altered by the Governor in Council to read as shown in the printed draft which accompanied my despatch of the 24th March.† made clear.

I regret that this was not

I have, &c.,

F. M. HODGSON.

(No. 147.)

SIR,

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR. [Answered by No. 35.]

WITH reference to my despatch, No. 90, of the 4th of May last,* and previous

Downing Street, 3 August, 1911. correspondence, I have the honour to invite your observations on that part of the Report of the Committee on Emigration from India to the Crown Colonies which deals with the arrangements for recruiting emigrants in India, and more particularly on the Committee's recommendation, which will be found on pages 20 to 21, that the two existing agencies at Calcutta should be amalgamated.

2. This proposal has already formed the subject of correspondence between my predecessors and the Governors of the various Colonies concerned, and I invite your attention to the correspondence with Sir E. im Thurn ending with the Earl of Elgin's despatch, No. 56, of the 3rd of June, 1907. I understand that the amalga- mation of the staff of the two agencies-which would not, of course, involve any amalgamation of depôts-is favourably regarded by the Indian Government, and I am disposed to think that such an arrangement would tend to economy, and would also facilitate recruiting by abolishing the competition between the various Colonial Governments which results from the existing system.

3. I should be glad to be favoured with a reply to this despatch at your earliest convenience, and if your views with regard to the proposed amalgamation are identical with those expressed in Sir E. im Thurn's despatch, No. 148, of the 20th of December, 1906,§ or can be stated in the compass of a telegram, I should be glad if your reply might be transmitted by telegraph.

I have, &c.,

L. HARCOURT.

228.27

26013

SIR,

No. 29.

BRITISH GUIANA.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE to THE GOVERNOR.

(Confidential.)

[Answered by No. 33.]

Downing Street, 1 August, 1911.

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your confidential despatch of the 13th of June, respecting the draft Bill for limiting the power to arrest East Indian immigrants without warrant, and to inform you that I approve of your · proceeding with the amending Ordinance.

"

2. I have, however, to call your attention to paragraph 231 of the Reports of the Committee on Emigration from India to the Colonies, in which it is stated that it should be obligatory in all cases that persons so arrested should, in the first instance, be brought before an officer of the Immigration Department or Magistrate."

2

3. Section 127 (2) of the Immigration Ordinance only provides for the return of the immigrant to the plantation without being brought before a magistrate, if the employer shall so require. I presume that the law is carried out by the police in this respect, and that immigrants are brought before a magistrate, unless the

‡ No. 28.

§ [Cd. 5192].

• No. 27.

† No. 23.

SIR,

(No. 125.)

No. 31.

FIJI.

THE GOVERNOR to THE SECRETARY OF STATE. (Received 8 August, 1911.)

[Copy to India Office, 5th March, 1912. L.F.] [Answered by No. 34.]

I HAVE the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your despatch, No. 91, of the 4th of May, on the subject of return passages for time-expired indentured Indian immigrants.

Fiji, Government House, Suva, 6th July, 1911.

2.

I regret to learn that you have been unable to accept the suggestion that the Government of India should be requested to agree to a limitation of the liability of this Government to three-fourths of the cost of return passages, leaving one-fourth and the cost of the outfit to be paid by the returning immigrant. You add that while the right of the time-expired coolie to a free return passage must remain unimpaired you wish the cost of these

Government, to fall on the employers. Passages, hitherto borne by the Colonial invite any representations I may have to make on this latter subject.

are good enough at the same time to

• No. 24. ↑ [Ca. 5192].

33391

17204/07; not printed. § 5073 not printed.

| No. 25.

C 3

PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

Reference :-

TTLE C.O. 885

سيس

21 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON

ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC-

COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH—NOT TOPage 451

38

2. On grounds of policy, I am strongly opposed to the proposal to make the employer responsible for the cost of the return passages of immigrants allotted to him, and I am advised that such an innovation would be keenly resented by those interested. My view is that the importers of Indian indentured labour contribute so much to the development of the Colony and that the Government reaps so great an advantage both directly and indirectly from the annual importations of labour at the expense of these employers that it would be inequitable to impose further burdens upon them. The vast majority of the imported coolies remain here after their indentures have expired, to the great benefit of the revenue and of the develop- ment of the Colony. On the other hand, the importers of labour are planters, the great majority of whom find farming in this Colony by no means a lucrative under- taking Labour is scarce and excessively dear; communications are bad; freights from the Colony to the neighbouring markets-Australia and New Zealand-are enormous (freight is higher to Sydney than it is from Sydney to London, owing to want of competition), and periodical loss from hurricanes is not infrequent. I do not think, therefore, that their burdens in connection with their labour supply should be increased.

3. But, apart from the question of policy, I an advised that experience in endeavouring to enforce legislation of the nature proposed in regard to return passages of so-called Polynesian immigrants, shows that it would be very difficult to recover the cost when the immigrant left the Colony, while the indefinite incum- brance on the plantation concerned would depreciate its marketable value. On the other hand, if the estimated cost were collected from the employer on allotment the money would he idle and would perhaps never be required.

4. I note that you are willing that the. Colonial Government should continue to bear the cost of the commutation of the right to a return passage. I am informed that substantial offers were made as far back as 1888 (see Circular Notice enclosed) to induce time-expired immigrants to forgo their right to return passages, but without effect. I am also informed that the experience in other Colonies has been the same.

The fact is that if a time-expired immigrant can lease land, he will remain, if he is desirous of remaining, in Fiji. He needs no inducement to stay: but if he is dissatisfied with the country or has other reasons for returning to his home, the inducements hitherto offered by this Government are not sufficient to induce him to stay. It should be borne in mind at the same time that the dissatisfied are generally the unsuccessful, either through physical unfitness or thriftlessness. It is not worth while to pay such men to remain in the country. Nevertheless, the Agent-General of Immigration considers that the extension of the system of creating Government settlements for Indian time-expired immigrants would be much appre- ciated and would be taken advantage of by immigrants whose term of indenture had recently expired. I entirely agree with Mr. Coates, and I have already made proposals elsewhere to you for acquiring land by purchase for the formation of more of such settlements.

5. I would note here that the average number of immigrants who have claimed passages after 10 years' residence for the last 10 years, ending 31st December, 1910, was 205 adults and 78 children (born in Fiji).

6. I turn now to the question referred to in the second paragraph of your despatch. I cannot put the claim of this Colony for a reconsideration of this matter more forcibly or more clearly than it is stated in the following extract from a minute by the Agent-General of Immigration :

For a number of years the British Colonies who conduct Indian immi- gration, with the exception of Fiji, have ceased to grant entirely free passages to time-expired immigrants. Fiji in this respect stands alone.

"In the Report of the Committee on Emigration presented in 1910. (paragraph 434), it is specifically recommended that Fiji should be placed on a similar footing to the other Colonies in regard to the cost of return passages. This recommendation is not mentioned in the despatch to the Secretary of State, dated 23rd December, 1910.* Again, in the report of the above Com- mittee, under heading Return Passages to India,' the Committee (paragraph 436) say: 'We are satisfied with the present arrangements by which a portion of the cost of return passages is paid by the Colonies, and do not recommend any alteration of it.' In my minute of 2nd September, 1910, in this MP, I

39

have pointed out that Trinidad provides (Ordinance XIX., 1899) that an immigrant entitled to a passage to India must pay, if introduced prior to 5th August, 1898, one fourth, and a female, one-sixth of the passage money, and if introduced after August, 1898, pay one-half and one-third, respec- tively, of passage money and cost of outfit. British Guiana requires an immigrant to pay one-fourth and a female one-sixth of cost of passage to India. In case of both Colonies the wife and child of an immigrant, if accom- panying the parent or husband, is entitled to a free passage.

Jamaica provides that an immigrant entitled to assisted passage shall pay one-half if a male, and one-third if a female.

"Mauritius does not pay any portion of cost of return passage.

a serious matter that in case of this Colony alone the terms of contract, which It is for years past have been approved in regard to other Colonies, should now be considered inequitable.

"I should also draw attention to another instance in recent years in regard to return passage in which, by direction of the Secretary of State, the Colony has suffered an exceptional disadvantage as compared with other Colonies. Prior to 1905, by Ordinance, no child of immigrant parents born in Fiji had a right to free passage to India unless accompanying its parents. He was not entitled to 'Return passage.' In 1905, by direction of the

Secretary of State, the Ordinance was amended in order to provide for a right to free passage to India to any child born in Fiji of immigrant parents, whether accompanying its parents or not, and up to any age.

64

As children born in Fiji of immigrant parents already number some thousands and still increase in numbers the contingent liability of the Colony has been largely increased. The amendment, it was stated, was necessary on the ground that in the Agreement signed in India it was stated that the child of an immigrant was entitled to a free return passage. This condition has always been taken to apply to children who accompany their do not agree to emigrate, being minors.

parents but The conditions of the Fiji Agreement were formerly precisely the same as those of the Trinidad and British Guiana agreement, but no attempt has been made to impose an amendment of the Ordinances of these Colonies relating to children born in the Colony. I submit that this is an exceptional treatment to the disadvantage of Fiji."

7. It has not escaped my notice that the recommendation of the Committee on Emigration from India to the Crown Colonies and Protectorates [Cd. 5192], 1910. in paragraph 434 of the Report, to the effect that Fiji's claim to be placed on the same footing as the West Indian Colonies in regard to the cost of the return passages, is qualified by the remark in paragraph 416 that some diminution in the number of prosecutions instituted by employers against their labourers should be made a con- dition precedent of a reconsideration by the Indian Government of this matter. would, however, point out that British Guiana and Trinidad, which are mentioned in the same paragraph, already enjoy a limitation of the liability denied to Fiji; and I would refer you to the confident anticipation of the Agent-General of Immigration quoted in paragraph 4 of my despatch, No. 126, of even date,* that an amendment of the law will effect a diminution in such prosecutions. I trust, therefore, that you may be able, after consideration of this despatch, to reconsider your decision not to approach the Indian Government on this subject. But if you are unable to review your decision. I hope that you will see your way to reopen the question at an early date should Mr. Coates's anticipations be realised.

Enclosure in No. 31.

CIRCULAR NOTICE.

I have, &c.

F. H. MAY.

His Excellency the Governor directs it to be notified that any immigrant who desires to settle in this Colony and who has acquired a right to a return passage to

• No. 16.

23391