THis PRINTED IMPRESSION has been carefully compared by me 
with the Bill which has passed the Legislative Council and found 
by me to be a true and correct copy of the said Bill. 
J. L. Jog, 
Clerk of Legislative Council. 
Enclosure 2 in No. 6. 
REPORT ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE PROTECTORATE 
ORDINANCE, 1924. 
This Ordinance has been the result of correspondence with the 
Right Honourable the Secretary of State in whose despatch of Tth 
September, 1925,* there was approved in general terms a Bill which 
had been submitted and which aimed at the termination of the 
status of domestic servitude persisting in the Protectorate. 
2. In paragraph 4 of the Secretary of State's despatch a certain 
omission from the draft Bill was sugoested, and this suggestion was 
acted upon. 
3. After a certain amount of discussion on the second reading 
and in the Committee stage this Bill was read a second and third 
time nemine contradicente. 
4. A good deal of criticism of the Bill by the two Urban Elected 
Creole members of the Legislative Council was directed against the 
fact that no compensation was to be paid to dispossessed slave 
owners. One of these members, in an impassioned speech, de- 
nounced the omission to give such compensation as * iniquitous and 
anrighteous,”” but it is significant that the Protectorate chief who 
represents the Central Province raised no objection on this or any 
other score to the Bill, but complained with some emphasis that 
settlers (i.e., Creole immigrants) in the Protectorate had been 
disseminating false representations as to the aims of the Govern- 
ment throughout his Province. 
5. The answer made by the Government was that in no instance 
was there any record of compensation being paid where the abolition 
of slavery was effected not at a single blow but as in this case in 
the course of nature by the liberation of ante nati on their master’s 
death and of post nati from their birth. 
6. A further point taken by the Rural Member as to the possi- 
bility of evasion by a transfer inter vivos by a dying master was 
disposed of by pointing out that under Section 8 (1) of Cap. 167 
any such transfer is already illegal. 
7. As has been said before, in spite of the use of violent language 
referred to in paragraph 4 hereof, the second and third readings were 
* No. 5.