This page needs to be proofread.
- (d) Is the husband of a wife, or the eldest son of a widow, possessing any one of the above qualifications.
- (e) Has for three calendar months previous to the 1st day of January in such year resided, or had his principal place of business or employment within such district, and is in receipt of a yearly salary of at least Rs. 600, or a monthly salary of at least Rs. 50.
- (f) Has for three calendar months previous to the 1st of January in such year resided, or has his principal place of business or employment within such district, and pays licence duty to the amount of at least Rs. 50 per annum.
- Provided—
- 1. That no person shall be registered as a voter, or be entitled to vote for the election of a member of the Council who has been convicted of perjury in any Court in our Dominions or who has been sentenced by any such Court to death, or penal servitude, or imprisonment with hard labour, or for a term exceeding twelve months, and has not either suffered the punishment to which he was sentenced or such other punishment as by competent authority may have been substituted for the same or received a free pardon from us.
- 2. That no person shall be registered as a voter in any year who has, within twelve calendar months immediately preceding the first day of January in that year, received any relief from public or parochial funds.
- 3. That no person shall be registered as a voter in any year unless he shall, in the presence of the registering officer or of a magistrate, with his own hand subscribe his name to his claim to be registered and write thereon the date of such subscription and the qualification, in respect of which he claims to be registered.
- 4. That no person claiming to be registered in the district in which he resides in respect of any of the qualifications (c), (d), (e) and (f), shall be registered in respect of the same qualification in the district in which he has his principal place of business or employment or vice versa.
With these qualifications there is evidently no trouble in Mauritius, although the Indian population is twice as large as the general population, and the Indians in Mauritius belong to the same class as the Indians in Natal. Only, there they are far more prosperous than their Natal brethren.
Assuming, however, that the necessity to deal with the Indian franchise does exist, your Memorialists respectfully beg to say that the present Bill is not calculated to meet it in a straightforward and open manner. The Honourable and learned Attorney-General of Natal, referring to a suggestion to slightly alter the existing law in course of the debate on the Second Reading, is reported to have said:
