HC Deb 04 February 1840 vol 51 cc1247-50
Mr. V. Smith

moved for leave to bring in a bill to extend to the British colonies in the West Indies, the act 5 and 6 William 4th, for regulating the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels.

Lord J. Russell

said, there was a subject of very considerable importance on which he wished to take this opportunity of stating his opinions. He did not think it would be necessary for him to bring a motion regarding it regularly before the House, but the subject had engaged the attention of Parliament in the Session before last. He was speaking of the introduction of Hill Coolies into some of our colonies. Inquiries which he had made into the condition of some of that class who had been transferred to our colonies, led him to believe, that though in some of the estates of Demerara they had not materially suffered, yet on the whole the experiment in that colony had been unsuccessful, and considering the very great length of the voyage, the chance of their being without a knowledge of the country to which they were going, and the difficulty of carrying into execu tion any provisions for their interests, permission should not be given for their emigration to Demerara or the West Indian islands. With respect to another branch of this practice, the emigration of labourers from India to the Mauritius—the inquiries he had made, and the report he had received from the Mauritius, had led him to a different conclusion. In the first place, there had been introduced into that colony, in the course of three years, about 20,000 persons from India. It did not appear, as far as his inquiries had gone, that these men had been sufferers. On the contrary, they had received good wages, had been very well treated, were perfectly aware of the conditions on which they had come to the Mauritius, and able to enforce them on their masters. The intercourse between Calcutta and the Mauritius was very considerable, and by means of the ships which went and came, the Indian labourers had the means of communicating with their friends, and informing them of their condition. Many of these persons had engaged themselves for five years, and many more were now willing to engage themselves, not for five years, because that was not now allowed, but for a certain term. According to the regulations now enforced, it was not possible for the labourers to leave their employment, go to India for a short time, and then return, as many of them would wish to do. It had been proposed to him, that labourers should be allowed to go to the Mauritius, and engage themselves for a service, or as it was sometimes called, an apprenticeship of five years. To that he had objected, thinking that the present Order in Council, limiting the service to one year, was reasonable, and that if the labourers were satisfied at the end of the term, it would be far better that the engagement should be renewed from time to time, than that a contract should be entered into for so long a time on their first arrival. Besides which, no real comparison could be made between the situation of apprentices, and that of these labourers. The apprentice, after a certain time, might become a master workman, but these men were merely hired as labourers for a certain time, and there was no excuse for making that time of very long duration. But fixing the term at only one year, and taking all imaginable precautions, similar to the terms of the bill which his hon. Friend had asked leave to introduce, and sending out strict orders to India, that there should be agents or protectors who should take care that bargains were not made by the labourers without a knowledge of their real nature, and that parties; should not take them away without letting them know where they were going, it did seem to him perfectly fair, that labourers from India who earned very small wages, should be allowed to go to the Mauritius, where they might earn higher wages and improve their condition. Of course, it would be a very great object to the proprietors of estates in the Mauritius to obtain this supply of labour, but he would not be for allowing it, unless it appeared clearly, that it could be done without injury to the labourers, whose case formerly excited great interest, both in that and; the other House of Parliament. He did not mean to propose any measure on this subject, but it was the intention of Government to relax the actually existing: prohibition with respect to the emigration of labourers from India to the Mauritius. He had thought it necessary to make this statement to the House, believing, that 'when Parliament was sitting, it would not be right to take any course without communicating it to the House.

Mr. Hume

thought, that the noble Lord should not have proposed a measure of so much importance, without giving the House an opportunity of discussing it.

Mr. Goulburn

thought it was extremely difficult to deal with the statement made to the House by the noble Lord. If the noble Lord were to suppose, that the House had sanctioned his proposition, they would be placed in a very awkward situation. It would be more satisfactory, he thought, that the House, before expressing its opinion, should wait for the promulgation of the Order in Council, which it appeared to be the noble Lord's intention to issue. At the present moment he was not prepared to say, that the noble Lord was wrong in his arrangement, but he wished to be allowed to reserve his opinion to some future opportunity.

Lord J. Russell

in explanation said, that it had not been his wish to call for any discussion on the subject at the present moment, but as it would be necessary to put in motion the prerogative of the Crown he thought that it would be desirable, that the House should be in formed what was about to be done before the steps were actually taken.

Leave given to bring in the bill.