§ MR. CAVEsaid, he wished to ask the Minister for India a Question relative to a projected treaty with France, enabling that country to draw a supply of labour for her colonies from our Indian territories. Knowing that Sir Frederick Rogers was in Paris last year for the purpose of arranging the terms of the treaty in question, and that he returned to England without having succeeded in the object of his mission, he had hoped and imagined that the design had been entirely abandoned. But certain remarks by a noble Lord in "another place" on Friday evening last had shown him that the scheme was still under consideration. He would briefly state what the project was. Shortly after the emancipation of slaves in the French colonies, consequent upon the revolution of 1848, similar results took place to those which were experienced in our own plantations. The emancipated negroes showed a natural repugnance to that agricultural labour which was their lot during slavery, and retired in large numbers from the estates. It was also well known that the remedies so confidently suggested in our own case of high wages on the one side, or Government interference on the other, proved unavailing to induce them to return. Accordingly, the French planters were obliged to follow the example of our own, and to look elsewhere for a supply of labour. The French Government thought these colonies of suffi- 537 cient importance to make their restoration a public measure, and a more extensive system of immigration from the coast of Africa was established. How that scheme was conducted the blue-book published last Session abundantly testified. We found complaints from the west coast of Africa of so-called "free emigrants" brought down in chains, of the territory of Liberia violated, and the civilization of various African communities checked, and not only the flag, but even the uniform of France degraded by a revival of the slave trade. Similar transactions on the east coast soon led to the unfortunate collision with Portugal, which was fresh in the memory of the House. The fact was, indeed, that in the present condition of Africa a free emigration from that quarter was impossible. With the exception of some few places, where the population was scanty, and not fit for agricultural labour, an emigration from Africa necessarily implied a renewal of the internal slave trade. The conduct of Prance in this affair was most embarrassing to England, and the Earl of Clarendon, and after him the Earl of Malmesbury had addressed strong remonstrances to the Emperor on the subject of the emigration scheme. They saw, no doubt, that the perseverance of France must necessarily lead us to the alternative of a rupture with our powerful neighbour, or of acknowledging that we had been forced to abandon our traditional policy, because it would have been impossible to continue repressive measures on the coast of Africa if one Power were allowed openly to defy them. Though he could quite well imagine that Her Majesty's Ministers were glad of any opportunity of escaping from this dilemma, he must protest against the plan they adopted of furnishing the French colonists with labourers from our Indian possessions, as a sort of bribe for giving up the African emigration. The House knew how strict and jealous were the regulations with which our emigration of coolies from British India to the West India Islands was rightly surrounded. Unlike emigrants from our own shores who were considered able to protect themselves, these people were watched and guarded like children. From the moment of agreeing to indenture themselves to British colonists to that of setting foot again in their native India, officers of emigration at every port, stipendiary magistrates in every district, made them the object of their vigilance and solicitude. So stringent was the practice, that the noble Lord the Member for 538 Kings Lynn, when in office, thought it his duty to disallow a Jamaica immigration ordinance, which deviated, though slightly, from the prescribed model. In common justice to our own colonists and to the Indians themselves, we should be as strict and uncompromising in regard to France. But could the Government say this was possible? He might be told that the French would give up their own Passenger Act and adopt ours, and that our consuls might act as emigration officers in the ports of the French colonies. But was it probable that so jealous and sensitive a nation would allow the interference of foreign officials to be more than nominal? Again, he might be told that the authorities would guarantee their proper treatment, but who was to watch the authorities in a case in which the interest of the whole community would be on one side? He did not say that the emigrants would be ill-treated, yet it was but the other day that the Governor of St. Louis was surprised by the appearance of a French war steamer in hot pursuit of free immigrants escaped from Guadaloupe, and with an account of others having been drowned in the attempt. And for how long were these poor people to be indentured? It could not be for less than five years—a long time in the history of slavery; and were we prepared, in the event of any of the emigrants being ill-treated, or their liberty improperly curtailed, to insist upon their restoration? The example of Spain showed we were not. We knew from the report of our own Consul that slaves, at the rate of 40,000 a year, were introduced into Cuba, contrary to express treaty with Spain, for which we paid her, and yet we did not demand that they should be restored to liberty. Upon these grounds he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India whether Her Majesty's Government still contemplate legalizing the exportation of natives of British India as indentured labourers to French colonies?