, 1873-02-19
Nr.l5 8.

gust WITH Its numOUfltSS nOLCeS OF removal,
and in the following September month with Its
brides and sales of passes,-and the difficulties
against which the planter not willing to give
such brides has to contend, are sufficiently well
known 50 we need not dwell further on them.
Moreover, the new principle il established by
the OrdInanc. of 1867.
AS already noticed above sab s /, it has al
ways been attended with some difficulty to the
labourer to understand The new rules on the
term for notices; but that inc )uYcn!ence, which
has certainly not been insignificant, will boEob-
waited BY the annexation to be made on the
copy Of the contract given the abourer.-If he
be unable 10 read it himself, he sill not fail to
seek the necessary assistance from a more able
comrade, if only lie knows that he has the
term specified on paper.
SarauW was the only Membcr who preferred
having the month of August as the term for
giving notice in regard to all contracts made
up to the LIST Of October. The a>siduous care
taken by the Commission throughout this whole
matter to protect the labouring class against all
advantages, and which protection should extend
beyond the limits, rather than be too scantlly
meted out, led to a proposal that the term Tor
giving notice should for the labOurer be fixed
at 3 weeks, so that he would have one week
more heyond the term allowed the employer
lOt giving NOiICC 10 iuO ldDOuIGI.-lH SuppUIG
of that proposal it was stated that if the term
be equal for both p1rties, the manager has it in
his power to keep bacl his notice to the very
last moment before the expiration of the term,
if he should have reason to suppose that if given
before, it would lead 10 removals GU the part Of
relatives of the individual concerned, whose
services he would not like to loose, but who are
Of course deprived of giving the requisite no
tice, as the term fer doing so had expired by
thcn.-Io this was objected, and with good
reason, that the longer term for the labourer
would be unfair towards the planter. who would
allow his IA days to 60 by without giving any
notice, but then in the additional s days allow
ed the labourer would be ovcrruu with notices
Of removal from the labourer, while he himself
would be debarrcd from getting rid of such sub
iccts whom he under those circumstances would
have wished to see removed from the Estate,
But the whole question will only have practi-
cal import where many or at least several la
b0urers have the same term Of nOtlce, and espe-
cialIy in reference to contracts to the LIST OCto-
Der; but such will scarcely be very numerous.
Going out from that proposal, which origlna-
ted from Sarauw and was supported by Fors-
berg and Rosenstand, the latter with some he
station the clause in question would have to
be worded as follows:
LII OIu0C 70 COuolIlutC u lCSdl uOVOCJ AZ u"AA
be given, on the part of the employer in the
course Of the first 2 weeks ia days. and on the
part of the labourer in the course Of the first 3
weeks I'll days. of the last month Of the term
contracted for Tue clause contained in the
Draft is therefore originating from a Majority
Coulter, Dubois, Elliott, Skeoch).
ad 5.
The obligation to make the reports treated
of in the first part of the S, is taken from the
Vagrancy Act it cannot be expected that
managers will be acquainted with that Act, but
they are not apt to pass over this enactment
when entered in the Labour-R egulatiOns. The
Ordinance Of 1867 refers to it too.
Ia as far as relates to the penalty prescribed
for refusing to receive a labourer with whom
an engagement had been made, it has been
considered advisable to add, that such refusal,
which may certainly at times be warrantable, for
instance where the labourer has become iDcapa-
citated for work, or has shewn bad behaviour
since the contract was made,-is illegal, and
which then the P~olicemasters will have to de-
eide (cfr. 5 3 By
It has been considered necessary to retain an
enactment providing against tampering with
labourers employed by others but instead of
L IL - I l. -Gh