Zo-n. COOLIE INDENTURED LABOUR. STATEMENT OF THE British & Foreign Anti-Slavery Society SHEWING ITS POLICY WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUESTION OF CONTRACT LABOUR. PRICE TWO SHILLINGS. LONDON : BRITISH AND FOREIGN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 55, NEW BROAD STREET, E.C. PRINTED BY ABRAHAM KINGDON AND NEWNHAM, 12, Finsbury Street, Chiswell Street, E.C. 1888. INDEX. Abuses of Coolie Immigration ... 5, 6, 8, 9, n, 12, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 21, 21, 23, 25 African Emigration ... ... ... ... ... n, 12, 14 Anti-Slavery Society ... ... 3, 4, 7, 15, 16, 20. 25, 25, 27 Deputations, Memorials, and Parliamentary action of the, 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Brazil ... ... ... ... ... ... 26, 26, 27 British Guiana ... ... ... ... 4, 6, 11, 13, 13, 21, 23 Ceylon ... ... ... ... ... ... ' ... 27 China ... .. ... 10, 13, 16, 17, 20, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Colonial Office ... ... 6, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25, 27 Commissions and Committees of Inquiry Cuba Foreign Office France Holland ... India India Office ... v... Jamaica ... Kroomen ... Laws Mauritius... Meetings against Coolie Immigration Natal Orders in Council Peru Polynesian Labour Traffic Portugal ... ... ■Queensland Reunion and other French Colonies Spain Straits Settlements Surinam ... Suspension of Immigration Treaties ... West Indies • •• ••• 7, 8, 9, 21, 22, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 13, l6, 17, 20, 23, 24, 25 14, l8, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26 3 , J 3( 14, 15, 17, 23, 26, 26 ... ... 22, 24 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, etc.. 17, 24, 24, 25, 27 16, 17, 20, 22, 25. 25 12, 13 7, 9, 13, 22, 24, 25 4, 5, 5. 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 21, 24 ...7. 17 ... ... 21 6, 8, to 20, 20, 23, 23, 24, 24, 25 ... 20, 21, 22, 23 .s. r • ... 24 v 20, 20, 21, 22, 27 3, 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 23, 26, 26, 27 25, 26 ... 25 ... 20, 22, 24 7, 9, 21, 24 18, 18, 22, 24, 25 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 16, 17, 24 COOLIE INDENTURED LABOUR. POLICY OF THE ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. The question of the reintroduction of Coolie labour into sugar growing colonies has been lately raised bv the French Government, who proposed that the English Government should be asked to rescind the prohibition of the exportation of British Indian subjects to foreign countries. On this subject the following correspondence has passed between the French Ambassador in London, M. Waddington, and the Secretary of the Anti-Si. avery Society : — ( Translation). Ambassade de France A Londres. i 2 th December , 1 887. Sir, — The attention of my Government has been called to the letter which you have recently addressed to the Foreign Office in the name of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society relative to the renewal of Indian immigration into Reunion, which letter has appeared in the newspapers. A decree having been issued on the 27th August last, by M. THE PRESIDENT LetterfromM OF the French Republic, to control afresh the immigration of free labourers totheSecre- into our colonies, I take this opportunity of addressing to you two copies of the Anti-°Slavery Report on this subject which was printed in the Journal Officiel Francois, and of Society, the Decree above noted. I have pleasure in thinking that, being more fully informed by the reading of this document of the conditions made with the Coolies who come into our Colony, your Society, whose aim is eminently philanthropic, will no longer endeavour to influence the decisions of the Indian Government in the sense of continuing the prohibition which now actually prevents the recruiting of Hindoo labourers for our possessions in South America and in the Indian Ocean. Accept, Sir, the assurance, &c., To Mons. C. H. Allen, Secretary of the Anti-Slavery Society. WADDINGTON. BRITISH AND FOREIGN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. 55, New Broad Street, London, E.C. 14//; December , 1887. To his Excellency M. Waddington, Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic: in London. Sir, I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of letter dated 12th instant, Mr. Allen covering two copies of the Report addressed to Monsieur Grew, President of the waddington French Republic, upon the proposed renewal of Indian Coolie immigration into French Colonies, and the Decree amending the former law relating to immigrant labourers. I beg to thank your Excellency for so promptly laying these documents before this Society, and promise that they will be maturely considered by the Committee when they meet in January next. The Committee have a lively remembrance of the great courtesy shown by your Excellency to the Deputation from their body, which visited Berlin, in 1878, during the sittings of the Conference held in that city. I have the honour to be, Your Excellency’s faithful servant, CHARLES H. ALLEN, , Secretary. 4 Mr. 'Allen to M. Wad- DINGTON. BRITISH AND FOREIGN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 55, New Broad Street, London, E.C. i st February , 1888. To His Excellency M. W addington, Ambassador Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the French Republic in London. Sir, In accordance with my letter of 14th December, I now have the honour to state that your Excellency’s favour of 12th December last, in reference to Coolie Immigration into Reunion, was laid before my Committee at their last meeting. In reply, I am directed to state that a document containing an historical resume of the question of the Coolie traffic, with its attendant evils, and of the action taken by the Anti-Slavery Society in regard to it, is in course of preparation at this office, and when printed will be laid before your Excellency. Therein will be found the reasons which have compelled this Society always to oppose the importation of British-Indian subjects into the colonies of any foreign country. Even in British Colonies where Slavery had once existed — such as Guiana, the West India Islands, and the Mauritius — it was found that the proper protection of Free Immigrants was almost a matter of impossibility. Indeed, so great was the oppression in some cases, that the Indian Government, on hearing the reports of Commissions sent out from England, peremptorily stopped any further exportation of Indentured Coolie Labour to British Colonies. The re-introduction of this labour into British possessions has only been allowed after the enforced establishment of a rigorous system of inspection by officers appointed by the Government, and unconnected with the planting interest, by which means something like a fair treatment of the immigrants could be ensured. With this long and painful experience before them, your Excellency will scarcely be surprised to find that the Committee, after examination carefully made, of the Report presented to the President of the French Republic, and of the Decree signed by him on the 27th August, 1887, relative to a re-introduction of British Indian subjects into Reunion, fail to discover any clause calculated to do away with the insuperable objection always entertained by them to the employment of Indian Coolies in foreign colonies. The safeguards asked for by the Indian Government in clauses 2 and 3 of the reforms quoted in the Report, page 1, are not provided for in this new Decree, as it is stated that the right of inspection of all estates upon which British subjects are engaged by duly accredited British agents is contrary to French law, and cannot be allowed. Your Excellency will therefore see that the objections always entertained by the Anti-Slavery Society are not removed, and it will be the duty of the Committee to uphold the views of their predecessors, and to continue their opposition to any fresh introduction of British Indians into Reunion or any other foreign colony. With the assurance of my high respect, I have the honour, &c., CHARLES H. ALLEN, Secretary. 5 1815-1834 STATEMENT OF THE ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY. The system of indentured coolie labour appears to have been adopted first in the Island of Mauritius. From about the middle of the last century there had been a considerable emigration from India to Mauritius of a perfectly free nature, although, together with their descendants, a large number of the immigrants were forced into Slavery, a charge of this nature being brought, in 1827, against a Slave proprietor, for having, ten years before, reduced six Indians to servitude. In 1815, Governor Farquhar obtained a supply of convict labour from India, a system which continued up to the year 1837. In 1829, the Government of Mauritius favourably recommended to the Governors of Madras and Singapore “a firm of high respect- ability ” ! who were desirous of “ introducing into the colony a number of Indians as hired labourers. This attempt seems to have been successful, for in 1830 twenty- five Indian labourers left an estate, complaining that they had received no wages for more than three months. The emplover referred them to the firm which had imported them. In the end, thev were re-shipped to India under a revived proclamation of 1817, which provided that strangers coming to Mauritius should be compelled to procure security for their good conduct during residence in the Island. So ended the first attempt at contract labour ; “ men who would not work for no pay being reckoned as vagabonds " ! The next allusion to the subject of immigration from India took place in 1834, when the chief magistrate in Calcutta wrote to the Secretary to Government, acquainting him with the fact that thirty- six hill coolies (a term which simply implied natives from places outside the towns) had entered into engagement with a gentleman in Mauritius for five years, to work on his sugar estates. The Vice- President in Council wanted to know whether anv arrangement had been made as to the payment of their return passage, and the chief magistrate sent back a copv of the agreement, of which the following is a short abstract. Indentured for five years. Passage to and from Mauritius to be paid by the firm importing Mauritius, (C. 1 1 15) First attempts at introducing Contract Labour. Ibid. Mauritius. (C. 1,115.) End of the attempt. Blue Book No. 180 of 1838. Renewal of the system. H. C. Return J&'o of. i8 3 s Disallowance of Ordinance No. i6of 183 by Lord Glenelg. Blue Book No. 560 of 1836. Reports of Messrs. Woodcock and Scott. Blue Book No. 180 of 1838. Stoppage of Immigration by Govern- ment of Mauritius. British Guiana. Ordinance No. 74 of 1836. Blue Book No. 180 of 1838. Order in Council, 1 2 th July, l«37- 1834-1837 6 them, unless they left their employ before the expiration of the five vears. Pav — five rupees for men, four rupees for women, both to do the same work. One rupee a month to be deducted for passage money home. A certain amount of food and clothing was also to be allowed. Six months’ pav in advance, and pav to commence on em- barkation. The Local Government then began to enact laws, which drew 5 forth from Lord Glenelg a statement that “ the design of the law might more accurately have been described as the substitution of some new coercion for that state of Slavery which had been abolished ; the effect of it, at least, is to establish a compulsory system, scarcely less rigid, and in some material respects even less ‘ equitable ’ than that of Slaverv itself” ; and therefore he disallowed the Ordinance. At this time the Governor-General of India obtained verv important information as regards Indian Emigration to Mauritius, from two members of the Bengal Civil Service, who had interested themselves in the Coolies when on a visit to the Colony. The reports of these gentlemen revealed a startling number of abuses in connection with the traffic, and in November, 1836, the Governor of Mauritius stopped the immigration, the importers of labourers having disregarded a Government notice of the previous February, which required, among other salutary provisions, that the immigrants and Sirdar should have been known to one another prior to the engagement. This measure, however, did not prevent the traffic, for in the three years 1836, 1837, 1838 — 22,923 immigrants arrived in the Island. In 1836, the Governor of British Guiana passed a Law for that Colony, having for its object the protection of all articled servants, or labourers under contract for a fixed time, imported into that Colony, and fixing the limit of indentures at three years from the signing of the ( ontract. 1 his law was allowed bv the Secretary of State, but early in 1837, on the application of a large West Indian proprietor, an Order in Council was issued by the Queen, extending the period of service, in the case of East Indian Company’s subjects alone, to five years. On the publication of this Order the Anti-Slavery party, headed by Lord Brougham, brought the question forward in the House ol Lords, and the Orders in Council were denounced as sanc- tioning a new form of Slave-trade ; but the traffic continued, theless. never- 7 1837-1838 To return to Mauritius : — In 1837, the Government of India passed an Act which provided that no emigrant should embark without a Government permit, granted after the Contract had been examined. The Contract was fixed at five years, unless a free passage were granted back, nor unless the native fully understood the Contract. Only twenty emigrants were to be allowed on one ship, except bv permit, to be granted only after the satisfactory state of accommodation, food, medical attendance, had been seen to. Registers were to be kept, fees paid, and a penalty of 200 rupees was incurrred for any breach of the law. This law was, however, repealed at the end of the year, and Law 32, of ] ^37i substituted. By this law no emigrant under Contract outside the Company’s territory was to be allowed to embark without an order from the Government of the Presidency, or some person authorised to act by the Governor in Council of that Presidencv, or (if there were no Council) by the Governor, and other safeguards were provided. After the passing of these Ordinances, onlv two shiploads of Coolies were allowed to proceed to Mauritius, in August, 1838. In the summer of 1838, the Deputy-Governor of Bengal suspended, the grant of permits for the further transportation of Indian labourers to the West Indies, as a Parliamentary inquiry was expected. This was confirmed bv the President in Council on 11th Julv, 1838, and the Governments of Madras and Bombay were asked to do the same. About this time permission to ship Coolies to Bourbon (Reunion) was also refused. In consequence of the reports of the cruel treatment of the Coolies, which had reached England, there arose a considerable agitation on the part of the Anti-Slavery Society and its branches against what was deemed to be a revival of the Slave-trade, and Lord Glenelg was obliged to withdraw a bill which had been introduced, and which proposed to regulate the traffic. Nor was this agitation confined to England, for on the 10th of July, 1838, at a public meeting held in the Town Hall, Calcutta, a petition was voted, praying the Govern- ment to institute a full inquiry into the trade, and to suspend all further shipments “ until it is proved that the emigration is fraught with as great advantage to the Indian emigrants as to the exporters and employers themselves.” A Committee was appointed by the Government of India, in August, 1838, to make an inquiry into the system of Coolie immigration. Law V. of 1837 . Law 3a, of 1837 - Blue Book No. 427 of 1841. Suspension of Immigration to the West Indies. Blue Book N0.45 of 1841. Blue Book No. 427 of 1841. Agitation in England against the Coolie Traffic. Petition of inhabitants of Calcutta against the system. Blue Book No. 45 of 1841. Appointment of Committee of Inquiry. Ibid. 1838-1839 8 Report of Committee of Inquiry. Blue Book No-45of 1841. Proved that the natives were deceived as to work and destination. Contracts not understood by the Labourers. Kidnapping largely prevailed. Great mor- tality. The traffic denounced. Order in Council, 7th September, 1838, The Committee appointed by the Government of India presented its report in 1839, bui it was not until 1841 that that document was published in England. It was appointed for the purpose of making the “ alleged abuses of the existing system the subject of specific investigation, with a view to the correction, as far as may be found practicable,” and a majority of this Committee reported that it was “ Proved beyond dispute, that the Coolies and other natives exported to- Mauritius and elsewhere, were (generally speaking) induced to come to Calcutta by misrepresentation and deceit, practised upon them by native crimps, styled duffadars and arkotties, employed by European and Anglo- Indian undertakers and shippers, who were mostly cognizant of these frauds, and who received a very considerable sum per head for each Coolie exported. “That if the natives in the interior . . . had been distinctly made aware that they were to go beyond seas to a great distance, and to remain absent for five years, it is probable that not one, or, at least, that very few would have been induced to take such an engagement. “ That the Coolies seem generally to have been induced by the duffadars, and others employed in that business, to come to Calcutta, by being persuaded that they should find employment as peons under the Company, work on the public roads, or as gardeners, porters, &c. “ That . . . the parties were really incapable of understanding the nature of the contracts they were said to have entered into, even when an opportunity of explanation had been afforded apparently sufficient for the purpose.” Kidnapping, too, had prevailed to a very considerable extent, and the Coolies in Calcutta itself were actually in a state of close im- prisonment. I he hardships and miseries of the Coolies on board ship were very great, even under the most favourable circumstances. Very few women had emigrated, and the result of the emigration to- the families of the emigrants up to that time had proved “disastrous.” The Committee further reported, that if the emigration were allowed to the West Indies there would be a mortalitv which “ would not fall much short of ten per cent, on the numbers exported. This same report stated further : — “ It seems to us that the permission to renew this traffic would weaken the moral influence of the British Government throughout the world, and deaden or utterly destroy the effect of all future remonstrances and negotia- tions respecting the Slave-trade : and this effect would ensue, however stringent, minute, or restrictive, might be the regulations framed to check- abuses. Regulations would be met by other regulations, specious and unobjectionable in form ; the difference would be in the execution, and in the good faith of the framers.” On the 7th September, 1838, Government issued an Order in Council on the Contract Laws, whereby it was forbidden in the 9 1839-1840 Colonies for contracts to be made beyond the Colon v, or for more than a very limited period. ( Vide Appendix C.) In consequence of the agitation, and before the report of the Indian Committee, the English Government sent out specific orders to pro- hibit the traffic, and on the 29th May, 1839, Acts 5 and 32 of 1837, were totally repealed by the Indian Government. Bv this law (14 of 1839) everv person who should make any contract after the following July with anv native of India, for labour to be performed in any British colonv or foreign colony without the territories of the East India Company, or aided or abetted any native in emigrating, should be liable to a fine of 200 rupees for each native contracted with, and in default, an imprisonment of three months. In Mauritius an inquiry also took place ; but there was a difference of opinion among the Commissioners, the majority of whom thought some interference necessary with regard to accommodation, medical treatment, and time allowed for meals, and hoped that on the other plantations there were as few grievances as those at Port Louis. But Mr. Special Justice Anderson (one of the Commissioners who had refused to sign the Abstract of Evidence, &c.) considered after a visit to twelve out of thirty-one estates, That, with a few exceptions, they were treated with great and unjust severity, by overwork, and by personal chastisement ; their lodgings either too confined and disgustingly filthy, or none provided for them, and in case of sickness, the most culpable neglect was evinced in withholding the accommodation, advice and attendance which the utter helplessness of the sufferers so urgently required. None of the establishments had sufficient hospital accommodation, and the expense of the public hospital was always urged as an excuse for not sending them there. That the Indians’ prejudices were never considered ; their deplorable state of destitution in their own country was always urged as an argument in favour of their improved condition here (Mauritius) without any reference to the change which takes place by their emigration from comparative idleness and indolence, with the full enjoyment of all their natural prejudices, to severe and unremitting labour under many painful restrictions ; that they were generally pillaged of the six months’ pay advanced to them in India, and compelled to toil for a recompense which bore no proportion to the work to which they were subjected, as compared with the common value of labour in the colony, or the sum they would have earned had they had the free disposal of their own time. The Planters, after this, made unremitting efforts to obtain the removal of the restrictions upon Coolie emigration, and in 1840, Mr. Special Justice Anderson went to England, at the instance of the Planters, and recommended a re-opening of the immigration under -regulations. Prohibition of the Coolie Traffic by English Government. Blue Book No. 427 of 1841. Law 14 of I839- Mauritius Inquiry. Difference of opinion amongst Com- missioners. Views of Mr. Special Justice Anderson. Blue Book No. 58 of 1840 and C. 1,115. Blue Book No. 331 of 1840 and C. 1,115. 1840-1844 io Colonial Passengers Act. Petition to Parliament of Anti-Slavery Society against pro- posed renewal of Coolie Immigration. Deputation to Lord John Russell. Anti- Slavery Reporter. Defeat of the Government proposal in Parliament. Order in Council of January 15th, 1842, allowing Coolie Im- migration. Petition of Anti-Slavery Society against it. Colonial Passengers’ Act passed, 1842. Blue Book, Mauritius, C. 1,115. Memorial of Anti-Slavery Society. Kmigration from China to West Indies opposed by Ami-Slavery Society. Coolie Im- migration to West Indies allowed by Government. In the Session of 1840 a Bill was introduced into Parliament to extend to the West Indies the English Act for the regulation of the carriage of passengers in merchant vessels, and Lord John Russell stated that he did not propose to allow any emigration to the YV est Indies, but to relax an Order in Council relating to Mauritius, preventing the importation of Coolies. The Anti-Slavery Society at once entrusted to the care of Sir Eardley Wilmot a Petition, praying that no relaxation might be allowed to take place with reference to Coolie immigration to Mauritius ; whilst on the 3rd March a Deputation from the Society waited upon Lord John Russell upon the subject ; but the Government persisted in their intention to relax the prohibition. On the 4th June Lord John Russell brought forward a motion in the House for carrving out the Government scheme, and carried it by a majority of 35 ; but later on Dr. Lushington, on behalf of the Society, moved, after the third reading of the Bill, that Lord John Russell’s Clauses be omitted from the Bill. The East India Company joined with the Anti-Slavery Society and the Clauses were struck out bv a majority of 49 ; and so the Order was not relaxed. On January 1 5th, 1842, however, Lord Stanley revoked, by Order in Council, the law as to emigration of Coolies from India, with regard to Mauritius, and the Society petitioned the House of Commons on the 28th February against any relaxation of the law. On the 26th July, 1842, the re-introduced Colonial Passengers’ Bill passed the third reading in the Commons, and the immigration became open once more. But the Governor-General in Council came to the aid of the Coolies, devising measures for preventing the exporta- tion of Coolies from India without a certificate signed by the Agent of the Government of Mauritius, and countersigned by a protector of immigrants appointed in India. The Anti-Slavery Society again protested, in a Memorial to Lord Stanley, against the immigration of Coolies to Mauritius on the grounds of kidnapping, fraud, and immorality. I his document was referred to the Governor-General of India. In January, 1844, on the proposal to allow emigration from China to the \\ est Indies, sanctioned by Lord Stanley, the Anti-Slavery Society again memorialized that Minister in opposition to any such scheme. In the same year Lord Stanley instructed the Governor-General of India to remove the restrictions on the export of labourers from 1844-1846 1 1 India to the West Indies, and allowed the Local Government of British Guiana to raise loans to promote immigration. This scheme the Society opposed, on the grounds of justice, humanity, and morality ; but Lord Stanley allowed the Bill passed bv the local legislature. On the 26th October the Anti-Slavery Committee Anti-siavery Society's memorialized Lord Stanley, and entreated that the Crown would Me 7 lori fi against the suspend its sanction to the Local Ordinances until all parties affected scheme by them might be fully heard in relation thereto. On the 1 2th November, 1844, the Anti-Slavery Society adopted Memorial of r Anti-Slavery a most elaborate memorial on the general question of emigration, which, Against Con- after being signed bv Thomas Clarksoii, was forwarded to Sir Robert Peel, the Premier. In this document were set forth the reasons upon which the Committee based their objections, not to a spontaneous emigration, but to the system of Contract Labour, which had hitherto been productive of most terrible abuses. In reference to the above memorial, a Deputation waited upon Deputation in 1 . support of Sir Robert Peel (who was accompanied by Lord Stanley) on the Memonal - 25th November, 1844. At this interview Lord Stanley announced that it was the intention of Government to disallow the Ordinance, which proposed to throw the expense of immigration upon the general taxation. This burden, being intended for the benefit of the producers, should be borne by produce. Early in 1845 the Committee, through Thomas Clarkson, ^ c t |;f J J avery petitioned the House of Commons, setting forth then objections to the parliament immioration schemes then in force in the Colonies, and praying the system of ® raising loans House to take their representations into early and serious consideration, ^L.“' ion and refuse to sanction any scheme for raising loans to supply the emancipated Colonies with Asiatic and African laboui ers, or any other measure of colonial immigration which was not based on the unfettered choice of the emigrants, and the expenses of which were not borne out of the private funds of those intended to be benefited thereby. In 1846, the Society presented a remonstrance to Mr. Gladstone against the system of Coolie immigration, on the ground of the groun;1 of immoral tendency of the traffic, and backed up their memorial by a Coolie system. Deputation on the 16th February, and the matter dropped. In June the Committee, however, received the satisfactory news g^ ment that Her Majesty’s Government had arrived at the conclusion that system, it was not advisable that the British Parliament should be invited to 1846-1848 12 Contract Law of 1838 again in force. Proposal of Government to relax Prohibitions. Protest and Petitions of Anti-Slavery Society. Complaints of Mauritius planters. They pronounce the emigration a failure. Blue Book C. 1,115. New Immi- gration Law in Mauritius. Memorial of Anti-Slavery Society against African Kmigration. Memorial against Emi- gration of kroomen into the Colonies. authorize a guarantee by the State of any loan which the \\ est Indian Colonies might raise for the purpose of promoting the immigration of labourers into those Colonies. The Government had also decided that the Contract Law of 1838 should remain untouched, so far as Africans and Coolies imported into the Colonies were concerned. In the following month the Whigs came into office, under Lord John Russell, who proposed, in conjunction with a measure for the introduction of Slave-grown sugars into the British markets, to relax the Orders in Council, and the Ordinances and Laws founded upon them in force in the Colonies which related to contracts for labour, and to permit indentures or engagements for labour to be made, for a period not exceeding twelve months, with the natives of Africa and Hindostan, in their respective countries. A protest from the Committee of the Society followed up this reversal of the policy of the former Government, with a memorial to Lord John Russell, and by petitions to Parliament, but these were of no avail. Great complaints were made, in 1846-, of the inadequate supply of labour in the Mauritius, of the wholesale extortion practised by the labourers, and the immoderate rate of wages. The mouthpiece of these complainants was the Committee of Merchants and Proprietors, who, about the middle of the year, waited on the Governor, and urged the introduction of 12,000 men from Madras, in addition to the annual 6,000 from Calcutta. They subsequently pronounced the immigration a failure , and addressed a petition to the Govenior for the remission of the export duty on sugar. Earl Grey sent out, on the 29th September, 1846, ten heads of an Ordinance which were adopted, and, subject to amendments, became the Immigration Law of Mauritius. In November, 1847, the Committee memorialised Lord John Russell (Premier) against the emigration of Africans to various colonies, which system, introduced on a small scale in 1840, had proved to be of a decidedly pro-Slaverv tendenev His lordship merely acknowledged receipt of the Society’s letter. In the following year, 1848, the Society petitioned the House of Commons against the system of introducing Kroomen into the colonies, on the ground of the cost, mortality, and immorality which had hitherto attended the importation of foreign labourers into British Colonies. 13 1850-1857 In 1850 the Court of Policy, and the leading planters of British Protests of 0 1 the Society Guiana, proposed to renew the system of Coolie immigration into that renewal of Colony under new regulations. On the 22nd March, the Anti- gm!™ iX slavery Society memorialised Lord Grey against this scheme, and Gl,iana - again in October. The Ordinance passed bv the Local Government was simply a immigration r J temporarily modified Slave Code, but Earl Grey allowed it. In the following suspended ' year, however, the immigration was suspended for a time in British Guiana, pending the consideration of an objection entertained bv the East India Company, to one of the provisions of the Guiana Ordinance. In 1852, M. \\ aleuski, in a despatch to the Governor of Reunion, prohibited the traffic in negroes from the East Coast of Africa. In 1853, March 5th, the Anti-Slavery Society waited upon the French Government prohibit recruiting of negroes in East Africa. Duke of Newcastle, by deputation, and called his attention to the Deputation " from Anti- evils of the emigration from the Kroo Coast to the British Colonies, pointing out more especially the extensive mortality, and the gfalion of"™' oppressive nature of the forced contracts for labour. Kroomen. In Mauritius the system of Coolie labour became a constant Mauritius. Proportion of source of abuse, as proved by the numerous laws passed by the cNTT- 5 Government. A most important proclamation was issued in 1855, bv the Governor, to the effect that the proportion of females was to be “ one for everv three males. ’ Mr. Labouchere, the Secretary for Colonies, laid down as a rule “ that the number of males introduced for 1856 and 1857 must not exceed, under any circumstances, three times the number introduced in 1855. Act No. 19, of 1856, permitted the Governor-General of India in Indian Act, No. 19 of Council, to suspend the operation of certain Acts relating to the l8s6 - emigration of native labourers, whenever he deemed it necessary to do so, in consequence of proper protection not being afforded to the Coolies. In 18 s6, the state of the Chinese who had emigrated into Cuba The Chinese occupied the attention of the Society. During the ten years — from ^ e p^f e l , av ery in the native language, warning the people against emigration to that r|Ii n n « hmes< country, with which the walls of the principal seaports of China were Peru. s placarded, and which had the effect of stopping the traffic. On July 1 8th, 1876, a Deputation of the Anti-Slavery Society waited upon Earl Carnarvon, to protest against a Bill passed by the Legislative Council of Jamaica, to appropriate from the revenue of the Island another ^20,000 for immigration. This would raise the cost of such immigration into Jamaica to more than half a million sterling since i860, of which the sugar estates employing Coolie labour had contributed less than ^80,000. Earl Carnarvon promised to look into the matter. Deputation of the Society to protest against proposal in Jamaica to appropriate ^"20,000 from the revenue in support of immigration, as set forth in Petition of Baptist Union. In the same year, the report of the Chinese Commission to Cuba Report of Chinese was received, revealing a dreadful state of affairs in that island, with Commission ' o 7 to Cuba. respect to the treatment of the Coolies. On April 20th, 1877, another Deputation waited upon Earl Anti-Slavery . j- Society’s Carnarvon, at the Colonial Office, to protest against the system ot Deputation to Coolie immigration in Jamaica, especially as to the financial portion Office, of that system. The end of the matter was, that further immigration immigration was prohibited by Earl Carnarvon, in a most masterly despatch to stopped, the Governor of Jamaica. in the same year, 1877, the Governor-General of India in Council Indian Act^ passed an Act, making stringent regulations as to the carrying on of C^Voi. the Coolie traffic to the Straits settlements (British possessions). The Spaniards, in 1877, endeavoured to promote a Company for Hi;r.no- importing Coolies into Cuba, and as this would have been the esta Successful blishment of a virtual Slave-trade, the Anti-Slavery Society Ant ;„ slavery . • • Society. protested against it. A treaty between Spam and China, permitting the immigration to Cuba, was, however, signed, and the Anti-Slavery Society endeavoured to prevent its ratification. Accordinglv, in 1878, a Deputation from that Society waited t0 upon the Chinese Ambassador, Kuo Ta Jen, and laid before him Minister ' their insuperable objections to the system of indentured immigration into countries where Slavery still existed. The Ambassador received 1878-1879 26 Reunion. Reports of Sir Frederick Goldsmid and Captain Miot. The Society again wait upon Chinese Minister. Treaty never ratified. Cruelties in Cayenne. Action of the Society to prevent Immigration of Chinese into Brazil. Chinese Government refuses to allow Immi- gration to the Deputation very courteously, and promised to lay the views of the Society before the Emperor of China. About the same time the Report of the Chinese Commissioners to Cuba was issued, and bore out completely the statements which had been received by the Anti-Slavery Society. During this year the British and French Governments received reports from a Joint Commission which had been sent out to Reunion, as to the deplorable condition of the British-Indian Coolies in that island. Again, in the following year, 1879, on a rumour of the proposed ratification of the Hispano-Chinese Convention by the Chinese Government, a Deputation from the Anti-Slavery Society, waited upon the Marquis Tseng, to present him with a summary of what had occurred on the occasion of their interview with his predecessor, Kuo Ta Jen. The Ambassador promised to at once send a despatch to China, advising that the Convention should not be carried out, unless there were very great modifications made in its provisions. The treaty consequently fell through. In 1879, reports came to hand of great cruelties perpetrated upon the Coolies in the French Colony of Cayenne, and the Societv drew the attention of the Foreign Office to the question. The Marquis of Salisbury replied that he would cause inquiries to be made into the condition of the Indian Coolies in that Colony. On the despatch of Envoys from Brazil to England in the same year to negotiate, through the Marquis Tseng, a convention for the importation of labourers from China, the Society warned the Chinese Ambassador against concluding any treaty with Brazil. In reply to the Memorial of the Anti-Slavery Society, the Marquis Tseng asked for further information, from time to time, and expressed his willingness to co-operate with the Society in their benevolent exertions. Again, in December, 1879, after receiving a copy of a speech made in the Chamber of Deputies in Brazil, the Society sent a copy of the speech, together with a memorial, to the Marquis Tseng, imploring him to do his best to prevent his fellow subjects from being treated as they had been in Peru and Cuba. The Marquis Tseng replied that, owing to the representations of the Society, and also to the investigations of a Commission which had been appointed to inquire .into the condition of labourers under 2 7 1879-1883 contract in foreign countries, the Chinese Government had absolutely refused to discuss the question of introducing its subjects into Brazil. The Government of China were satisfied that whenever Chinese were properly paid and well treated, they had always gone of their own accord to the various countries. The policy of the Anti-Slavery and Aborigines’ Protection Generai°of India stops Societies has also been successfully carried out with reference to immigration into Reunion. Reunion, and in 1882 it was announced by the Secretary of State for India that the Governor-General had expressed his opinion that emigration of Coolies to that island must be stopped from the following October, unless the French Government at once made certain con- cessions specified in his despatch. The principal concession demanded was that all sugar estates, on which British subjects were employed, in Reunion, should be open to the inspection of duly accredited English officials. This, and other concessions, not having been made by the French Government, all further export of Indian Coolies to French Colonies was suspended. France is now seeking to re-open the traffic. A report, signed by the Minister of Marine and of the Colonies, has lately been addressed to the President of the Republic, enclosing the project of a new decree regulating the re-introduction of Coolie labour. This decree was New aUe mpt o ® . to re-open the signed by the President, M. Grevy, in August, 1887, and is the Traffic, document referred to in M. W Addington’s letter to the Anti-Slavery Society (page 3). ( Vide also Appendices, A. B.) In 1882, when it was proposed to introduce Coolies into Queens- land, the Society protested against the proposal in the columns of regard to 00 o- /"> Queensland. The Times and other journals; and in the Session of 1883, Sir George Campbell, at the request of the Anti-Slavery Society, put a question in the House of Commons with reference to an importation of Cingalese into that Colony. The Colonial Secretary replied that the Department for the Colonies had always looked upon free Chinese labour, and the indentured labour of the Indians, as distinct, and had never made the allowance of the one to depend on that of the other. In April, 1883, the Anti-Slavery Society learnt that the Chinese Government were sending an envoy to London en route to Biazil, to conclude a treaty for supplying Chinese under contract on a very large scale. On the arrival of the Envoy, Mr. Tong King Sing, the Society waited upon him, and warned him against sanctioning any scheme of indentured labour from China to Brazil. Mr. Tong King 1883 28 Successful action of the Society with reference to Chinese Immigration into Brazil. Sing promised to bear in mind the suggestions of the Committee, and proceeded to Brazil. On his return to England he thanked the Anti- Slavery Society for their advice and information, and stated that he would recommend the Chinese Government not to allow the emi- gration, because he found it impossible to obtain any adequate security for the protection of the labourers when scattered over the distant plantations of the Empire. Although Mr. Tong King Sing was chairman of a Chinese steam-ship company, which would have benefited by the transport of so large a number of emigrants, he did not allow that to override the objections which he saw to the scheme on humanitarian grounds. In this movement the Society received the warm support of the Foreign Office, and was thus mainly instrumental in preventing the Brazilian planters from obtaining what had been justly designated by their own press as “ yellow in place of black Slave labour.” The above document, taken from official reports and from the Society’s published records, is intended to show that the action of the Anti-Slavery Society, and of those bodies which preceded it, has always been opposed to the introduction of indentured labour into sugar-growing colonies, whether British or foreign. Even in those possessions over which Her Majesty bears rule, the difficulty of obtaining impartial and effective supervision of the labourers employed on plantations is so great, that the Anti-Slavery Society has never found that the safeguards necessary to secure protection to the Coolies can be adequately enforced. In foreign Colonies, supervision by British officials has almost invariably been peremptorily refused, and so long as this state of things exists, it will be the duty of the Society to oppose every attempt to induce labourers to emigrate to sugar-growing colonies under indenture made in the country to which the emigrant belongs. By the Order of Her Majesty in Council, of 7th September, 1838, it was strictly provided that no indenture should be valid unless made in the Colony itself, and should in no case exceed the term of one year. ( Vide Appendix C.) Experience has shown that where the safeguards contemplated in the above Older in Council have been relaxed, the labourers have suffered in person — physically, morally, and pecuniarily. 29 APPENDIX A. Coolie Labour in Reunion. The following correspondence, relating to a rumoured re-introduction of Coolies from India into Reunion, has passed between the Anti-Slavery Society and the Marquis of Salisbury, K.G. (vide Times, i^rd Nov) " British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, “ 55 , New Broad Street, London, E.C. “ 10 th November , 1887. “ To the Right Honourable the Marquis of Salisbury, K.G., &c., Her Majesty’s “ Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. “ My Lord,— Reports having reached the Anti-Slavery Society that the question of re-introducing Coolie labour from India into the island of Reunion has been raised by the French Government, I am desired by the Committee to call the attention of your lordship to the abuses which existed under the former system of Coolie labour in that island, and against which it seems difficult, if not impossible, to obtain any secure guarantee in a foreign colony. “I may be permitted to lay before your lordship what the Society has always considered are the true principles which should govern a system of immigration, especially into countries where Slavery has formerly existed. These principles are : I hat immigration is properly the object of Government supervision, but not of Government assistance in any pecuniary sense. That contracts for labour be only recognised, or enforced, which are made by the labourer with a full knowledge of the work to be done, and in the country where such labour has to be performed. '“That where such immigration is permitted, something like an equality in the respective numbers of both sexes be maintained.’ “In former immigrations into Reunion from India, the contract has invariably been made in India ; and we have no statistics showing that the relative proportion between the sexes was ever maintained. The obstacles always thrown in the way of personal investigation of the condition of the Coolies on the plantations by a duly authorised English official have always appeared to the Committee to form an insuperable objection to the introduction of British subjects as labourers in French plantations. “ The Committee have heard, incidentally, that the report presented by Sir Frederick Goldsmid some few years ago (which report was, unfortunately, never published) revealed a deplorable condition of the Coolie population of Reunion. Unless guarantees of a kind hitherto steadfastly refused by the French Government are obtained and rigorously enforced, the Committee fear that a re-introduction of contract labour from India would result in a similar distress to the immigrants ; and they would earnestly call upon your lordship to refuse to allow a system of immigration to be renewed which has always been attended with such disastrous results. “ I have the honour to be. your lordship’s faithful servant, “ CHARLES H. ALLEN, Secretary .” (A memorial in similar terms was also forwarded to the Secretary of State for India). Replies. “Foreign Office, 21st November, 1887. t* Sir, — I am directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 10th instant, protesting against the introduction of Coolie labour into the island of Reunion, and I am to acquaint you that his lordship has caused this communication to be referred to the India Office, as all decisions upon that subject rest exclusively with the Indian Government. — I am, Sir, your most obedient humble servant, “T. V. LISTER. “ The Secretary , Anti-Slavery Society.” 30 ‘‘India Office, Whitehall, S.W., 14 th December , 1887. « Sir— I am directed by the Secretary of State for India in Council to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 9th inst., intimating that the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society are averse to the renewal of emigration from India to Reunion. “ In reply, I am desired by Lord Viscount Cross to state that the decision in this matter rests with the Governor-General of India in Council, to whom a copy of your letters to the Foreign Office and this Department will be transmitted. — I am, Sir, your obedient servant, “ J- A. GODLEY. “ To Charles H. Allen, Esq., “ Secretary , British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.” APPENDIX B. (Translation.) Report to the President of the French Republic. 27 th August , 1887. Monsieur le President, — In 1882, on account of complaints made by the English Consul at Reunion as to the manner in which Indians were treated, the Government of India suspended the recruiting of immigrants for this Colony, and declared, after long negotiations, that it would only remove this interdict upon the following conditions, viz. : — ( 1 ). The expenses of immigration are to be inscribed amongst compulsory expenses. ( 2 ). Contracts of re-engagement are not to be made before the expiry of the first Contract, and they must be subject to the ratification or z nsi of the English Consul. ( 3 ). The Consul shall have the right of visiting and inspecting all properties in the Colony upon which the immigrants are employed. As the first of these reforms would modify the “ Senatus-Consulte ” of the 4th July, 1866, it could only be carried out by a special law. It does not seem necessary to take so radical a measure. It is equally impossible to accept the pretensions of the Government of the Viceroy upon the third point, for it is contrary to French laws of property. As for the right of vise, this formality has been practised in Reunion ever since 1877, contracts of re-engagement only being valid after the vise of the Consul. This functionary can always address his observations to the local administration, to whom it appertains to authorise or not, the re-engagement of the labourers. But as a means of conciliation, the Administration of the Colonies believes that it can obtain from the Indian Government a renewal of immigration, by giving it the assurance — in exchange for conditions which it is impossible to accept — that the immigrants will be thoroughly protected by the French Administration. It is with this aim that the following project of a Decree has been prepared and adopted in its main provisions by the Council of State, and in which has been inserted every clause necessary to secure the welfare of the labourers. I have consequently the honour to beg you to invest this project of a Decree with your signature. I have the honour, &c., (Signed) E. BARBEY, Le Ministrc dc la Marine et des Colonies. The Decree above alluded to received the signature of the President (M. Jules Grevy) on the 27th August, 1887. 3i APPENDIX C. Summary of the Principal Clauses of the Order in Council on Contract Laws. 7 th September , 1838. Chapter I. Repealed all existing contracts. Chapter II. On the Formation or Entering into of Contracts of Service. Sec. 1. — No contract of any force unless made within the limits and on the land of the Colony. Sec. 2. — Nor for more than four weeks, unless reduced to writing, with pre- scribed formalities. Sec. 3. — Nor unless it should be signed with the name, or, in case of illiterate persons, with the mark, of each of the contracting parties, in the presence of a Stipendiary Magistrate ; nor unless such Stipendiary Magistrate should subscribe the written contract, in attestation of the fact that it was entered into by the parties voluntarily, and with a clear understanding of its meaning and effect. Sec. 4. — Nor for more than one year. Sec. 5. — Every such written contract to expire without notice. Sec. 6. — And to specify, as accurately as might be, the general nature of the employment in which the servant was to be engaged. Sec. 7. — When for work by the time, it should specify, as precisely as might be, the number of hours of daily labour, and the hours of the day at w’hich such labour was to commence and to be suspended, and to re-commence and to terminate. Sec. 8. — When remuneration was to be made in kind, the contract must specify, w'ith all practicable precision, the nature and amount and quality of the articles to be supplied to the servant, and the time when, and the places or place at which, such articles were to be delivered. Sec. 9 . — No servant’s wages, if contracted for in » • • v. 1 1.1 FT - kind, or, if contracted for in kind, might be paid in mo***™ any other than the stipulated kind, except by the express consent of the servant. Sec. io. — Prescribed the formalities of the contract. Chapter HI. Related to the apprenticeship of children. Chapter IV. On the Enforcement of Contracts of Service. Sec. i.— Stipendiary Magistrates to have exclusive jurisdiction under this Order. Sec. 2. Jurisdiction to be exercised in a summary manner. Sec. 3. Governor to prepare Forms of Proceeding, to be approved by the chief Civil Judge, and used in all proceedings under the Order. Se C a. Forms might be revised, amended, or repealed by same authority. Sec. s’.— No sentence, award, or order made by any Stipendiary Magistrate in the execution of the jurisdiction so vested in him should be liable to be reversed set aside, appealed from, or questioned by any Court ofjust.ce, in any Tf the said Colonies, except on the ground of an unlawful assumption of power or other illegality on the part of such Stipendiary Magistrate ; but the same, when consistent with law. should, to all intents and purposes, be bmdmg, final, and cone lusn e^ Magistrate entitled to the same indemnity for acts done under the Order as for all other acts. . Sec 7 —On complaint and proof made that any servant had neglected to perform his stipulated work, or that he had performed ,t negligently or improperly, or that by negligence or other improper conduct he had injured P P ’ entrusted to his care, the magistrate might, in his the property of his master discretion, adjudge the servant to any one or more of the following penalties that is to say, a pecuniary penalty for the benefit of the master, not exceeding month’s wages or the commitment of the servant to prison, with or without hardlbour, for any term not exceeding fourteen days, or the dissolution of the contract of service. 32 Sec. 8. — On complaint preferred and proof made by a servant before any Stipendiary Magistrate, that his master had not paid the servant’s wages, or delivered to him the articles stipulated for, or that the articles so delivered were not of the prescribed amount and quality, or that by the negligence or other improper conduct of the master the contract of service had not been faithfully performed, or that the master had ill-used the servant, the Stipendiary Magistrate might make order for the payment of the wages in arrear, or for the delivery of the stipulated articles, or for compensation to be made to the servant for any injury by him sustained by such negligence or improper conduct of the master, or by his non-fulfilment of the contract, or by his ill-usage of the servant ; and if such order be not complied with, according to the exigency and tenour thereof, the magistrate should and might issue a warrant for the seizure and sale of the goods of the master, or so much thereof as might be requisite for making such compensation ; and, failing any sufficient distress, the magistrate should and might make order for the commitment of the master to prison, for any time not exceeding one month, unless compensation be sooner made. The magistrate might also, in any of the cases aforesaid, if he should see fit, order the contract of service to be cancelled, either in addition to, or in substitution for, any such order as aforesaid. Sec. 9. — Order not to prevent proceedings before ordinary tribunals, if the Stipendiary Magistrate should decline to entertain any such case, and should see fit to refer the same to the ordinary course of law. Sec. 10. — If questions arise, magistrate, on application of either party, might arbitrate between them ; and his award to be final.