HC Deb 01 March 1867 vol 185 cc1246-59
MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE

I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the House to the exportation of Coolies from the East Indies. There is no doubt a great difficulty in calling the attention of the House to a question of this nature, seeing that it does not possess any political interest, and is of long standing; but if the House will grant me their attention for a short time, I think I shall be able to show that the subject is one of the saddest and most melancholy interest, and one well deserving the attention of the country. It affects the lives of a great number of persons, who, although not our countrymen, have a claim upon us to the fullest protection. At one time we encouraged the slave trade. We afterwards abolished it at an immense cost. Since the abolition of that trade, we have kept up a large force on the coast of Africa at an expense of nearly £1,000,000 a year, for the purpose of suppressing the slave trade. But, whilst we have been incurring that heavy expense we have been encouraging, promoting, and developing a system of what is called free labour, in the shape of emigration from the East Indies, which is nothing more than the slave trade in another shape. The system is objectionable on another ground. At this very moment—I believe the noble Lord (Viscount Cranbourne) will bear me out in the statement—labour is wanted in our Indian dependencies, especially in Bengal, and all this time we have been promoting the system of free labour emigration. When we abolished the slave trade, and made the Negroes free, the natural result was that they would not work, and it was therefore impossible to cultivate the plantations in the West Indies. To meet that evil the Government promoted the system of exporting coolies from the East Indies. When colonies state what number of labourers they require, an officer is appointed in the East Indies to collect these labourers, and ship them to the different colonies with all possible despatch. If there be a demand for labour in one place and a superabundance in another, it might naturally be expected that it would find its level. The system of emigration from the East Indies, on conditions which bind the labourers to periods of servitude for three, or five, or seven years, is open to very great evils and abuses. What is the manner in which these poor people are induced to emigrate? Officers are appointed to collect them together, and they are induced to embark on this venture by the most illusive promises. Their credulity is imposed upon by the picture of an El Dorado, which it is represented to them they will find on their arrival at their destination. Having by these means been brought together at some establishment at Calcutta, not more than five days are allowed them before they are shipped off to the colonies, and, no doubt, when they arrive there theoretically their rights are secured to them, and if the persons to whom they are articled do not fulfil their obligations they have the power of appeal to the magistrates. But it should be recollected that the appeal is to the magistrates of the Province where the plantations are situated; and, in one instance, where a number of the workpeople, including several women, made a complaint to a magistrate at Durban, in Natal, because they ought to have complained to a magistrate in the district where the planter lived, they were not admitted, and afterwards the overseer came into the town, tied them to carts, and flogged them back again to their own district. Although they are surrounded with rights, yet, owing to their ignorance and their inability to understand their rights and privileges, they are of little or no value. It may be said that these are exaggerated statements but there is one point which admits of no such accusation, and that is the treatment which these poor people experience on shipboard, and the conduct of the officers in India, in shipping them in vessels which they charter for the purpose of conveying them on these "voyages of death," as they are called in India. The official Report for 1864–5 contains the following figures:—

Coolies shipped. Landed.
1st Ship 457 420
2nd Ship 490 >435
3rd Ship 585 392
4th Ship 431 343
5th Ship 454 311
6th Ship 398 250
7th Ship 491 195
3,306 2,346
This statement shows that nearly one-third died on the passage, and great numbers died soon after their arrival from weakness and sickness. Surely such a state of things is deserving of the attention and consideration of the House and the Government. Now let us inquire into the causes of this state of things. The object of the officers is to secure a ship as cheaply as possible, and the consequence of the system was the fearful loss which occurred only eighteen months ago. All these things, notwithstanding their importance, attract little or no attention. Yet we are responsible for them if we approve them. But I will give you one more instance. The Eaglespeed, with a number of coolie emigrants on board, was wrecked the day after she set out, she not being a seaworthy vessel, and the loss of life was 262 souls. It is a remarkable fact, however, that none of the Europeans were missing. The Report upon that case points out some of the evils with which we should grapple. It appeared that both the emigration agent and the protector repudiated any responsibility in the matter. They both said they had nothing to do with the crew of the vessel and could not be held responsible. The wonder is, under such circumstances, that the loss of life in cases of this kind is not much greater. There were no life-buoys in the ship, although five had been provided, and the number of emigrants embarked was 425. The Report finds, with regard to the protector, that he was quite in error as to the scope of his duties, and then we come to another part of the Report, which is one of the most striking things I have ever read. Here you have a ship sinking the day after she sails, and 262 lives are lost; and on an investigation being made into the circumstances of the wreck, it is found that the chief officer of the ship was sick at the time, and did little or nothing; that the doctor was suffering from an attack of pleurisy, and therefore did nothing; that the second officer was sober, but suffering from the effects of liquor; that the boatswain had jammed his finger, and was in a great measure off duty; that the captain saved his own life, but did nothing else; and that the crew, with two exceptions, behaved disgracefully. It was shown that all the lives might have been saved with proper care; but as it was, the captain and crew left the ship, and 320 souls were left there to perish. The conclusion arrived at in the Report was that the emigration agent and protector failed in their duty; that the captain and doctor erred deplorably; that the second officer and boatswain behaved disgracefully; and that the crew also behaved badly, the only persons on board who behaved well, being two seamen named William Maynard and William Wilson. It may be said that this is an isolated case, and does not prove that other vessels are not properly manned and commanded; but we do not know that, for it is seldom we get so full a Report bearing upon the treatment the coolies receive. In 1859 an interesting article on the subject appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes. It reviewed a work by M. Du Hailly, who said— To him (the planter) the coolie merely took the negro's place, and emigration was no more than a return to the old system; it was—if one may venture to say so—the slave trade of the 19th century. The same author said— It is curious that emancipation has brought back recruiting for labourers for our colonies nearly to the state of things prevailing before slavery existed as an institution. What virtually is the emigrant but a modification of those white bondsmen of the 17th century who paid for their passage by a three years' surrender of their liberty, and whose sufferings brought to mind the most frightful features of the slave trade? A gentleman who has published a work in favour of the system of emigration (Mr. Beaton) writes— The Government, yielding to the popular clamour and the threats of the press, ordered the 656 coolies to be disembarked on Flat and Gabriel Islands, two miserable rocks, a few miles from Port Louis, where no sufficient provision had been made for affording them shelter and food. The condition of these miserable wretches was truly deplorable. The quarantine laws, strictly enforced, forbade them to land—the open sea and the bare rocks offered them only a grave. In the course of a short time the bones of 200 coolies were bleaching on those barren rocks, the victims of Creole cowardice and Government mismanagement. This painful mortality created little sensation among the Creoles. Cholera had broken out in Port Luis, and they had no sympathy for any suffering save their own. That cannot be an exaggerated account, coming as it does from a gentleman in favour of the system under which such things are done. Is it possible, then, for us to shut our eyes to the abuses which have occurred in the mode of carrying out this system of free labour? It is an absurdity that we are keeping up a fleet at an expense of £1,000,000 a year to suppress; slavery, and that yet we are permitting it in another form, and misleading the poor people who are called free labourers. But what shall we say to the conduct of Earl Russell's Government in entering into a treaty with the French to allow them to take our labourers to the island of Reunion at the rate of 10,000 a year? There is no doubt that in 1858 the French were engaged in the African slave trade at Zanzibar, and that they introduced slavery under a false pretence. The French ship the Charles et Georges was taken, and that led to a diplomatic difficulty. They I induced labourers, under false pretences, to embark, and then treated them as slaves. We protested. Lord Malmesbury protested in a despatch to Lord Cowley, which would apply equally to our conduct now, saying— Your Excellency is aware that Her Majesty's Government have not altered their opinion as to the analogous nature of the scheme of the French nation for exporting negroes with that of the avowed slave trade. At that time the Isle of Reunion required 10,000 a year of these so-called free labourers to keep up the supply. Subsequently, in 1860, Lord Russell entered into this Convention with the Emperor of the French, to allow the exportation of these coolies from India to the Island of Reunion, where we could have no control over them. That treaty, I believe, should have expired last year. I asked the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Layard) last year on this point, but he wished me not to bring the question forward, as he thought France would not ask to have the treaty extended. I believe, however, that the treaty was extended for another year after all, and whether it expires this year or not I cannot say; but I hope that if it does expire, or has expired, it will never be renewed. There is responsibility enough, and evil enough, for us in what we are doing in our own colonies, without giving other countries power over these unfortunate men. I am asked, "Do you propose to ruin these colonies by allowing no further exportation?" No! I think it would not be difficult to improve our present system, and to repress some of these evils. Some of the recommendations I am about to name to the House have been suggested to me by gentlemen who are perfect masters of the subject—who have themselves lived abroad, and given me accounts of more scenes of sadness and sorrow than I choose to trouble the House with. As remedies for the evils now existing the following suggestions had been made by exceedingly competent authority:— 1. That no further extension of the present system be permitted. 2. That the trade in seagoing coolies be more nearly assimilated with that which has been found necessary in Assam and Cachar; and that the severe laws governing the latter, as recently passed by the Bengal Legislative Council, be followed so far as practicable. 3. That after a given period only those colonies should be allowed to recruit Indian labourers as can show an absence of such population as could develop its soil. 4. That no further treaties be entered into giving to any foreign Power the right to recruit in British India. 5. That it should be impressed upon colonial Governments that China affords a large market for available labour, if properly enlisted in that country. 6. That the laws of recruiting in India should be made more comprehensive, and that greater checks should be put upon the exportation of persons not thoroughly comprehending the nature of the servitude they are undertaking. It has been said that we do not take such an interest in the Chinese coolies; but it should be borne in mind that the Chinese are a very different race to the Bengalees. You cannot treat the Chinese as the Bengalees are treated. The Chinese combine together, and insist upon having their rights; and there is a great contempt of life in China, which leads the men to enter of their own free will and risk the chances. They value their life at so low a rate in China, that I have heard a man sentenced to execution may get a substitute to undergo his fate for him for some twenty or thirty dollars. Then the laws of recruiting in India should be made more comprehensive, and a check should be placed upon the exportation of coolie labour. Those who take charge of the coolies should be bound to give security for their own conduct, and every man taken should be supplied with a ticket upon which is written, in his own language, a statement of the objects of his enlistment, and the name of the place he is to be taken to. Heavy penalties should attach to any man moving a coolie ten miles from his home without having a certificate. These are very simple suggestions, but they are very important. The result, if adopted, will be to secure a better class of men than the miserable crimps now employed in India, and to give the fullest information to the coolies, so that they may know where they are going, and what conditions they are subjected to. The House will see, doubtless, that great hardship is done under the present system, and that British legislation should interfere on behalf of those who cannot defend themselves. I will now leave the matter in the hands of my noble Friend (Viscount Cranbourne), and I am sure the House will think that this is a case of so much hardship and grievance that I am justified in bringing it forward.

MR. ADDERLEY

Sir, the hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) has attempted to make out a case against the system of coolie emigration from the East Indies such as would induce this House to put a stop to it altogether. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: No!] The hon. Gentleman says "No;" but he does not seem to be aware of what the result of his proposals would be. The proposal he makes is tantamount to the abolition of the whole system. I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that, if his view of the case is true, no amount of advantage in the system of coolie emigration would justify such a state of things as that which he believes to exist; but I do not think he has at all made out his case, and from all the information I can acquire he is entirely mistaken on the subject. He began by saying that coolie emigration is only a modified slave trade; but that is a phrase which may be met by a counter assertion—that it is no such thing. The only facts that he has stated in his speech to base this assertion on are cases of very considerable mortality on the voyage between the East Indies and the West Indies, and of shipwreck. He states that the mortality on the voyage is 30 per cent, leaving the House to suppose that that is a fair sample of the mortality on all voyages, and that, therefore, they should be put an end to. It would be just as legitimate an argument to say that the cholera raging at the East End of London, the mortality in that district was ground enough for pulling down the East of London. In the case he has cited, occurring in 1864–5, the mortality amounted to 28 per cent, but that arose from typhus fever, arising from the starvation they came from, breaking out amongst a batch of emigrants. [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: But there were eight ships.] The hon. Gentleman will excuse me; but if he will turn to the page from which he quoted, he will see that the typhus fever raged in all those ships. He asks us, then, to do away with coolie emigration from the East Indies, because the typhus fever broke out on board eight ships in 1864. In the case of the Eaglespeed which he quoted, there was no doubt a great loss of life; but the case was investigated by the Courts of Law and also by a Committee of this House, and condign punishment was inflicted on those who were guilty. But is that to be cited as an illustration of the average state of things on board all emigrant ships which carry coolies? It would be too monstrous a state of things to be allowed to continue if it were true, but the real state of things is utterly un-like that. In point of fact, there is no class of British subjects who are so care-fully protected as these East Indians, who are elaborately guarded and protected from harm in every way from the outset of their engagement through the voyage, and where they went. The primâ facie justice of the system there can be little doubt of. The hon. Gentleman himself allows that there is a great demand for labour in one part of the world, and a great want of employment in another, and it is desirable, for the interests of the world, that the excess in one part should be utilized to supply the deficiency in the other. The hon. Gentleman says that that should be left to a natural process. But no natural process will cause the poor ryots, who are starving on 2d. a day in the East Indies, to tumble into the West Indies, where labour is as necessary to the planter as food is to themselves. Steps must accordingly be taken to convey the surplus labour from the East to the locked-up capital of the West. The Act by which this is done was passed in India in 1864 to consolidate and amend seventeen previous Acts passed there since 1839. As it now stands the Act effectually protects the coolies against fraud on the part of those who recruit them. The description which has been given by the hon. Gentleman of the mode of recruiting does not in the slightest degree resemble the real fact. The recruiters who bring the coolies to the ports are licensed and are bound to wear badges. Their licenses must be countersigned by a magistrate, and when a coolie agrees to emigrate it is their duty to take him before a magistrate, and it is the magistrate's duty to explain the matter to the coolie, and to see that he understands what he is about, and whether he wishes to go, and until that is certified by the magistrate he cannot even be taken to the port of embarkation. At each of the ports where this emigration is carried on—Calcutta, Madras and Bombay, Madras being the principal—there is a protector of emigrants, who has most elaborate functions, and is subject to heavy penalties for their non-performance. He has to see that the recruiter accompanies the coolies to the port, and provides them with necessaries on the road until the time of embarkation. There are stringent provisions also against their embarkation if in ill health, and against embarkation at all without a license. The ship is also surveyed before sailing, and the master has to give a bond of £1,000 for the proper observance of the conditions prescribed. I have made careful inquiries at the Emigration Office, and had all the reports diligently searched, and there was not found a single instance of neglect, or evasion of the regulations, in the records of the office. And now as to the French Convention. The hon. Gentleman has most justly stated that that Convention was first entered into in the interest of the negroes. No doubt, it was an inducement to the English Government to supply the French with labourers, on condition that they would cease to take slaves from the coast of Africa. That Convention was made for three years, beginning in 1860, and was continued indefinitely, subject to termination, upon notice on either side, of three months; but no such notice has been given. When the hon. Gentleman talked of 10,000 coolies having emigrated from the East Indies to Bourbon, [Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE: I was not certain of the number] he adopted a very large figure; but instead of 10,000, I believe the number who now emigrate is not ten. In fact, the emigration has almost entirely ceased. The French did not like the coolies; the scheme was a failure, and, as I have just said, there is no coolie emigration to Bourbon now going on. I have alluded to the protection granted to these coolies in the East Indies at the time of their emigration, and I wish now to show the kind of protection which they receive on their arrival at the West Indies. The emigration takes place almost entirely from Madras, and the coolies go chiefly to Trinidad, Mauritius, and British Guiana, In all the colonies where these emigrants are received laws are passed expressly for their protection—laws which have been carefully drawn up and based upon instructions from the Colonial Secretary at home, and which guard most minutely the interests of the coolies. There are, moreover, agents and sub-agents, who periodically visit the coolies in the colonies, and report to the Governor upon their condition. It is the duty of these agents to see that the regulations are carried out; that proper provisions and medical attendance are provided; that the members of families are not separated from each other; that the hours of labour are limited; that their hack passage is secured; and that the indentures are cancelled in cases where the emigrants have been subjected to cruelty or injustice. I can scarcely conceive of better arrangements being made than those at present enforced. It is perfectly true that there have been some disasters lately in the shape of shipwrecks. The Report which the hon. Gentleman quoted from stated that five vessels were lost from 1864 to 1866 inclusive. It must be remembered, however, that one of these was wrecked in a tremendous storm on the Hooghly, which destroyed all the shipping in the neighbourhood. Does the hon. Member ask us to put an end to coolie emigration because a tempest swept away the Ally? The case of the Eaglespeed I have alluded to. Another vessel put into shore on account of sickness on board, she dragged her anchor, and twenty-six emigrants perished. In another case, there was also a loss of life, and in the disaster of the Countess of Ripon, all lives were saved. Taking all together, however, I do not think that these shipping losses have lately been greater than they were in former years. There has certainly, however, been a very great mortality, particularly at the period to which the hon. Gentleman has referred to. But taking everything into account, its average has been nearer 5 per cent than 28 per cent of the number shipped; and last year, although famine was raging in Bengal, and at such a time many emigrants would embark who would be unable to stand the voyage, the average was only 2 per cent, the smallest that had yet been known. This certainly is most creditable as regards the efficient working of our agency. The House must bear in mind that, during a period of distress, such as the famine to which I have alluded, the utmost precautions will not prevent some emigrants being taken on board, who, though seemingly in good health, may, during the voyage, succumb to disease, on account of their bodies being weakened by privation. It is therefore matter for congratulation, and shows how ably our agents discharged their duty, that the mortality was not greater last year when such distress prevailed. I may state here that the agents at Calcutta have recently allotted to the coolies a larger amount of space on board these emigrant ships than was formerly given, in consequence of the mortality which prevailed during some of the voyages. The Act stipulates that only ten superficial feet of space shall be given to each person, but this has been increased to twelve superficial feet. I wish now to call the attention of the House generally to the beneficial effects of this system of emigration. It has been of the greatest possible benefit, both to the coolies themselves and to the planters of the colonies to which they are consigned. Those who have ever been the opponents of the system are the East Indian Government and the abolitionists, who blindly seek to promote the interests of the negro by the adoption of measures which are most detrimental to them. The opposition of the Government of the East Indies is easily explained. They wish to keep these coolies at home and get the benefit of their labour on the lowest terms. But, let me ask, is it fair to keep these men in India, earning wages at the rate of 2d. a day, when they can earn 1s. per day in the colonies to which they are sent? The coolies were much more slaves at home than where they went. It seemed that Pharaoh wanted to keep his slaves at home, and refused to let them go into the wilderness, where, in this case, they would get better fare. In the East Indies they wanted to keep down the mass of the labourers to the starving point. The very fever which destroyed them on the voyage should be set to the account of the condition they were taken from. When the coolies emigrate their condition becomes, not only physically, but morally improved. From being miserable and dependent creatures they become men, act the part of men, save money to a very considerable extent, and frequently return again, after taking their back passages, to their native land. I should like, while on this point, to quote some figures showing the savings which some of these emigrants have made. In 1859 there were 349 coolies who returned to the East Indies with savings to the amount of £7,496, or at the rate of £21 per head. In 1861 there were 270 coolies who returned with £3,076, being at the rate of £11 11s. per head. In another year the savings amounted on the average to £25, and in a second to £28 per head; while sums as great as £12,000 a year have gone back to India in the pockets of these coolies, Another fact, which is perhaps more striking, is the number of these coolies who having returned to the East Indies with money, have gone back again to the colonies where the hon. Member thinks they are so hardly treated. In 1866, 20,362 coolies went from the East Indies to the Mauritius; and of these 717, after returning to the East Indies, went back to the Mauritius because they liked it better. At the present moment there are 246,000 coolies in the Mauritius, the greater part of whom work regularly upon the estates. It is much the same with regard to the West Indies. There are almost as many cases of re-emigration to Trinidad and Demerara. The savings of the emigrants there are also very large, and only 13 per cent of those who go to these islands think it worth their while to return to their native country. The hon. Member has quoted one Report, allow me to quote another. It is the Report of Mr. Underhill, of whom we know something in connection with the recent proceedings in Jamaica. That gentleman, in the year 1860, went out to the West Indies as a Baptist missionary, and reported most elaborately upon the prosperity of the coolies there. The opinion of this gentleman is all the more valuable that his inclinations were all the other way, and that he wished to make out that the coolies interfered with the prosperity of the negroes. He winds up his Report by saying that prosperous as the coolies are they were not more useful to themselves than to the negroes, whose condition has been improved by the importation of the coolies among them. I need not point out to the House that if this system of coolie emigration has been useful to both coolies and negroes it has also been most useful to the planters. Nothing required steady labour so much as sugar cultivation, and since their emancipation, the negroes in our West Indian colonies could not be trusted to anything like the same extent that they were before for such labour. The slightest delay in getting in the crop was fatal; but the planters in many colonies had to trust to the negroes, who were constantly inclined to refuse to work, and he might say that their property had been saved only by the introduction of coolie labour. To abolish the system, therefore, merely because in a particular case two or three crews had been destroyed by typhus fever, and because the Eaglespeed had been lost, owing to great carelessness, would be very unwise. The hon. Gentleman proposed, first, that there should be no further extension of the system—what that obstruction and extension meant he did not know; second, that it should be assimilated to that of Assam, which, he himself admitted, he did not understand; and thirdly, that the Indian Government should be allowed to impose checks on the emigration. The result of that, considering their anxiety to retain this surplus labour, would be to put a stop to coolie emigration altogether. He hoped, therefore, the House would not adopt the views of the hon. Gentleman.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he wished to bear his general testimony to the correctness of the views which had been expressed by his right hon. Friend (Mr. Adderley). He believed the system to be beneficial alike to the coolies, who in the colonies earned wages which they could not earn in their own country, to the West Indies and Mauritius, and to the negroes themselves. From its very inception to its close, the system was surrounded by every possible safeguard. The Indian Government required that persons enlisting coolies should be licensed; that the coolies should be recruited in the presence of a magistrate; that a full explanation should be given them; and that, up to the last moment, before going on hoard, they should have the power of withdrawing, so that none might be taken without their full consent. The ships were carefully surveyed, the greatest precautions being taken to insure sufficient accommodation, medical aid, and every reasonable comfort; while, on arriving at the colony, under a system superintended by local inspectors, the observance of the conditions of the engagement was enforced. The coolies, more over, had the right of returning to their country, which they frequently did with I sums of money, which, to them, were considerable. This system was superintended by some of the ablest public servants which this country possessed—namely, the Emigration Commissioners. Of course, abuses must sometimes occur in this, as in every other system, and the hon. Gentleman had referred to the case of the Eaglespeed, in which, undoubtedly, great fault existed. A full inquiry, however, was made, and the delinquents received punishment. His hon. Friend would do a service to humanity, and to the Commissioners, by bringing forward any abuses which came to his knowledge; but the occasional occurrence of abuses was no reason for destroying or discrediting a system which had been productive of most beneficial results.