A.—2

47

it seems doubtful whether the Conservator has not exceeded his legal powers in the action taken by him as regards these stowaways, who cannot come under the definition of "seamen," as supposed by Mr. Warden; but that this Government would be glad to have instructions how such cases should in future be dealt with. Apparently, stowaways left in India can only be treated under the European Vagrancy Act, and no claim on their account would be against the ship or its agents.

Sub-Enclosure 2 to Enclosure in No. 61. Letter from Government of India to Government of Bengal, dated 3rd January, 1879. I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter, dated the 11th November last, reporting the action taken by the Conservator of the Port of Chittagong in the case of certain stowaways who were brought to Chittagong on board the ship " Durham," and soliciting general instructions how such cases should in future be dealt with. 2. In reply, I am desired to observe that, in the opinion of the Government of India, neither the provisions of "The Merchant Shipping Act, 18541/-' section 207, nor those of the Indian Act, XIII. of 1876, section 4, can, as supposed by the Conservator, be held to cover the case of stowaways. In both Acts the definition of " seaman" is practically the same, and includes "every person (except masters, pilots, and apprentices duly indentured and registered) employed or engaged in any capacity to serve at sea for the purposes of any ship," or " on board any ship." The words "employed or engaged" mean brought on board and shipped for the purpose of being employed there. The definition is confined, as the Government of India are advised, to persons with whom a regular contract of service has been concluded by entering their names on the ship's articles. 3. In the present case, the persons in question appear to have come on board without the knowledge and against the will of the master, and without any contract for service. Such being the case, he was entitled to leave them on shore at the first port he came to; and he cannot be said to have deprived himself of this right by making the stowaways work in return for the food he gave them. 4. With regard to the European Vagrancy Act (India, No. IX. of 1874), under which you propose to treat stowaways left in India, I am to say that, if the stowaways in question bad become vagrants within the meaning of that Act, they could no doubt have been dealt with thereunder. In section 31 of this Act it is laid down that, "whenever a sailor of European extraction, not being a British subject, is discharged from his ship in any British Indian port," the owner or master of the ship shall be liable for the expenses incurred by Government in the case of his becoming a vagrant ; hut in this instance the stowaways were British subjects, and, even had they not been so, it is very doubtful whether their case would have fallen under this section. In the Act there is no definition of " sailor/'' but the words which appear in section 31— viz ," whenever a sailor . . . is discharged from his ship"—seem to indicate the determination of a regular contract of service; and, as it has already been observed, no such contract can be considered to have been entered into in a case like the present. The expenses incurred on account of stowaways who are British subjects, and are left behind in British Indian ports, must therefore, in the existing state of the law, be borne by Government. 5. The Governor-General in Council is, however, not satisfied that these charges, originating commonly in the carelessness of shipmasters, should continue to fall on the Indian taxpayer, and His Excellency in Council has, with this object, addressed a despatch to Her Majesty's Secretary of State, soliciting information and instructions.

No. 62. Copy of a DESPATCH from the Eight Hon. Sir Michael Hicks Beach to the Oeeicer Administering the Government of New Zealand. (Circular.) Sir, — Downing Street, 12th August, 1879. With reference to Earl Granville's despatch of Ist May, 1869,1 have the honor to point out to you that no provision at present exists for the relief and repatriation of distressed colonial seamen shipwrecked in the United Kingdom; and, as British seamen distressed through shipwreck in the colonies are sent home at Imperial expense, it would appear only right that colonial seamen becoming distressed by shipwreck in the United Kingdom should be relieved and sent home at the expense of the respective colonies to which they belong. I request that this subject may be taken into consideration by your Government, Avith a view to provision being made for such expenses; and I would suggest that the Shipwrecked Mariners Society should be authorized to relieve and send home distressed seamen belonging to the colony under your government when the Society is satisfied that such seamen cannot find means to provide for