prisonment, then the days that the labourer had spent in the jail were added to his indenture and he was taken back to his master to serve again. The Commissioners had to say nothing against these rules. There was nobody to judge the Protector of Emigrants if he gave a wrong judgment, but in the case of the magistrate he could be criticised. Again the Commissioners add that these prisoners should be put into separate jails. But the Colonial Government would be bankrupt if they built jails for hundreds of prisoners that were imprisoned. They were not able to build jails for the passive resisters. Then the Commissioners said that the labourer should be allowed to redeem his indenture by payment of a graduated redemption fee. They made a mistake in thinking him to be an independent man. He was not his own master. Mr. Gandhi said he had known of English girls well educated who were decoyed, and who were not indentured, unable to free themselves. How was it then possible for an indentured labourer to do this? Mr. Balfour compared the labourer under an indenture to a soldier. But the soldier was a responsible man and he could rise to a high position. But an indentured labourer remained a labourer. He had no privileges. His wife was also included under his disabilities, so also his son. In Natal the finger of scorn was pointed at these people. Never could an indentured Indian rise to a higher post than that of labourer. And what did the labourer bring when he returned to India? He returned a broken vessel, with some of the artificial and superficial signs of civilisation, but he left more valuable things behind him. He may bring some sovereigns also with him. They should decline to perpetuate this hateful system of indenture because it robbed them of their national self-respect.
