§ Sir J. Grahamwished to know whether her Majesty's Government had made up their minds as to the course which they intended to pursue with regard to the East-India Labourers' Bill.
§ Sir G. Greysaid, that the bill as it came from the Lords was in its details open to objections. In some cases certainly the bill would act as a prohibition, but in others it would amount to a legal sanction, and on the whole it would not effect the purpose for which it was intended; he therefore proposed to discharge the order, on the understanding that the Indian Government would prevent the emigration of labourers to the West Indies until there should be time for a full investigation of all the circumstances. It was most necessary that contracts should be put an end to, or rather the practice of making contracts should be stopped, when one class of the contracting parties were not aware of the position in which they were placing themselves. His right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control, was prepared to state that the prohibition could be enforced for a time, and arrangements could be made to render invalid any contracts not effected in the colony in which the labourer intended to settle, and not made with the sanction of a stipendiary magistrate.
§ Sir R. Peeldesired to know if the hon. Baronet opposite was enabled to state that the Governor in Council did possess authority to prohibit the emigration of natives of the East Indies. If a person calling himself an agent were about to send 100 or 150 of them to the West Indies, could the governor prevent that?
§ Sir G. Greyobserved, that the bill on the Table of the House was confined to emigration under contracts—that was the subject-matter on which the bill would operate. With regard to the powers possessed by the Governor-general, it was a matter to which his right hon. Friend, the President of the Board of Control had turned his attention, and when called upon he would give the House any information that might be required.
§ Sir R. Peelobserved, that the Session had now considerably advanced. If the East-India Labourers' Bill were dropped, it would be necessary to have security given that for two years emigration should be prohibited. He should be content with two years as that would give time for 383 mature consideration as to whether prohibition ought to be made permanent. What he wished to impress on the House was, that they should not consent to drop the bill without the certainty that the Governor in Council did possess the power to prohibit emigration. If there remained a doubt on the subject, he for one must require that the bill be passed, for the question was one of the greatest importance.
§ Sir G. Greyagreed with the right hon. Baronet, that if any doubt existed it ought to be removed, all he wished to do was to avoid pledging himself at present.
§ Subject dropped.