Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T05:15:02.160Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards the Abolition of Penal Sanctions in Dutch Colonial Labour Legislation: An International Perspective

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2010

Margo Groenewoud
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In 1877, the Dutch parliament declared that the use of penal sanctions in a civil dispute was contrary to the classic-liberal legal principles it was eager to follow in diose days. Based on these principles was the concept of stricdy separated civil, penal and administrative jurisdiction, a concept modeled on modern legislation, guaranteeing equal justice for both civilians and authorities. As a consequence of this liberal direction, from then on the infliction of penal laws by authorities would be justified only when the general interest was at stake.

Type
Articles
Information
Itinerario , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , July 1995 , pp. 72 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © Research Institute for History, Leiden University 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 These principles were introduced by the German thinker Anselm von Feuerbach (1775–1833) in his Lehrbuch des gemcinen in Deutschland gellenden peinlichen Recht (1801).

2 In 1869 Dutch Surinam's Penal Law was enforced, based largely on Dutch legislation.

3 In 1872 a convention between the Netherlands and Great Britain was signed regulating the migration of labourers from India to Surinam. Between 1873 and 1916 some 16,000 British Indians were recruited for Surinam; see Emmer, P.C. ed., Colonialism and Migration 1987)Google Scholar.

4 Kolomiak Venlagen van Nederiandsch Indie en Suriname.

5 It was, in fact, a re-establishment: indentured labour was used as early as in the sixteenth century when non-indigenous labourers were needed in the newly colonised territories of America. Boogaart, Van den en Emmer, P. C. ‘Colonialism and Migration: An Overview’, in: P.C. Emmer ed., Colonialism and Migration (1986)Google Scholar.

6 Kloosterboer, W., Unvoluntary Labour since the Abolition of Slavery (1960) 1Google Scholar.

7 Indentured labour was also in 1910 denounced by the High Commissions of Natal and Transvaal. In the same year, Australia ended the import of contract labourers as part of its ‘all-white policy’.

8 As amply descriped in Tinker's, HughA New System of Slavery: The Export of Indian Labour Overseas, 1839–1920 (Oxford 1974)Google Scholar.

9 Between 1909 and 1938 some 24,645 Javanese labourers were recuited to work at plantations in the Straits Settlements; based on V.J.H. Houben's unpublished paper' “Menyang Tanah Sabrang": Javanese Coolie Migration in— and outside Indonesia, 1900–1940' (1992). With gratitude to Mr. Vincent Houben for using his valuable study.

10 Parmer, J. N., Colonial Labour Policy (1960)Google Scholar.

11 Parmer, , Colonial Labour Policy, 108–113;Google ScholarHouben, , ‘Menyang Tanah Sabrang“, 11Google Scholar.

12 An industry booming in the period 1908–1913 when, according to Van Lier, Samenleving (1977) 246, when some 8,000–9,000 seasonal labourers worked here. How many came from British-Guyana I do not know; I estimate they made up a substantial part of about 40–60%.

13 Rapport, Commissie Bos (1911) 201–210.

14 Febure, J. M. Plante, West-Indie in het Parlemenl (1918) 6–7Google Scholar.

15 ‘Contract Labour’, 1914. Public Record Office (PRO) London, Foreign Office Correspondence (FO), 371/1954.

16 Consul Hewett to Governor Van Asbeck, 25 March 1913. ‘Contract labour’, 1914. PRO, FO 371/1954/814.

17 Ibid., Van Asbeck to Hewett, 28 March 1913.

18 Ibid., Hewett to Van Asbeck, 29 March 1913.

19 PRO, FO 371/1954/16823.

20 Loudon to FO, 16 February 1914. PRO, FO 371/1954/7097. Quote: ‘Si la presence de ce fonctionnaire a Paramaribo est favourable au maintien des bonnes relations entre le Gouvernement de la Colonie et le representent du Gouvernement Brittannique’.

21 Ibid., one of many notes in margin.

22 Balata: conditions in Surinam. PRO, FO 371/1954/7360.

23 De West (6 January 1914).

24 ‘[…] een autoriteit die — men denke slechts aan onze afhankelijkheid van Engelse werkkrachten voor verschillende bedrijven — met een pennestreek meer kwaad kan doen dan al onze autoriteiten tezamen kunnen goed maken’, Ibid.

25 Minute, 5 March 1914. PRO, FO 371/1954/9741.

26 M.C. Seton (India Office) to Law (Foreign Office), 16 February 1916. Indentured Labour 1916, correspondence. PRO, FO 369/883/31584.

27 India Office to Foreign Office, 20 April 1916. PRO, FO 369/883/76287.

28 Memorandum British legation 1 May 1916 accompanying Letter of Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Ministry of Colonies 8 May 1916. General State Archive (ARA) the Hague, Ministry of Colonies (MC), verbaal 11 May 1916, 42.

29 Minute Walter Langley (FO), 24 June 1916, PRO, FO 371/2660/122926.

30 ARA, MC, verbaal 24 October 1916, 44. A British copy of this Report is to be found in PRO, Colonial Office (CO), 571/4/ 37614. See for the surprised reaction of Dutch officials e.g. ARA, MC, Verbaal 26 April 1918, 29.

31 Ibid.

32 Breman, J., Koelies, Planters en Koloniale Poliliek (3rd rev. ed.; 1992) 264–265Google Scholar.

33 ‘Dat de eer van de Nederlandse natie in het geding was’. Breman, , Koelies, 265Google Scholar.

34 The Rhemrev report is published in J. Breman's, Koelies, together with Van den Brand's pamphlet, both insiddition to Breman's study of the background of Rhemrev's investigation and the reception of his report by Dutch politicians.

35 ‘Herziene Koelieordonnantie’, Indisch Staalsblad 421 (1915), art. 24Google Scholar.

36 ‘[…] dat dwang op den persoon van den arbeider een zoo abnormaal middel is, dat dit slechts zoo lang en voor zoover onafwijsbaar noodig is te aanvaarden’, and, ‘[…] dat de poenale sanctie zonder overgangstermijn kan en dus ook moet worden afgeschaft’. Sum-mary of report in Handelingen Tweede Kamer (11 06 1924) 2359Google Scholar.

37 The application of conventions in colonial territories in accordance with art. 421 of the League of Nation's Constitution and art. 35 of the International Labour Organisation's Constitution turned out to be not as easy as was expected by most mother countries when signing the Peace Treaty in 1919. It was eventually decided that (mother) countries on ratifying a convention had to state the colonial territories in which the convention was to be applied. See for a Dutch point of view: Haga, B. J., ‘De Behandeling van den Gedwongen Arbeid te Geneve en de Geschiktheid van de Internationale Arbeidsorganisatie voor Koloniale Arbeidsvraagstukken’, Koloniale Studien 14 (1930) II, 213–251.Google Scholar For British colonial policy see: Circular Dispatch of Colonial Labour Committee in PRO, CO 888/1/CLC, 3. And: Adeogun, A. A., ‘The Influence of the International Labour Organisation on Nigerian Labour Law’ (PhD thesis; London 1967)Google Scholar.

38 For definitions see also Kloosterboer, Involuntary Ijibour, and Emmer, Colonialism and Migration.

39 Memorandum Forced Labour 15 June 1927, Rhodes House, Oxford, MSS Brit. Emp. S22/G514. Copy in MSS Brit. Emp. S19/D6/3. The Memorandum was added to the Questionaire.

40 Kupers, E., Het Vraagsluk van de Poenale Sanctie op de Internationale Arbeidsconferentie te Geneve (1930)Google Scholar.

41 Report of the Twelfth Conference on Labour, 1929. ARA, MC, A 8446.

42 Also published as Het Koelie-Contracl te Geneve (1930).

43 American imports of Deli tabacco mounted at the turn of the century, with top volumes of 9,735,000 (1890) and 9,823,000 (1920) pounds. Import taxes had already caused bitter fights, reaching as high as US Supreme Court (Falk vs. Robertson, 24 November 1890). See: Gould, J. W., Americans in Sumatra (Den Haag 1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 Kupers, , Het Vraagstuk van de Poenale Sanctie, 4Google Scholar; Stoler, A. N., Qipitalism and Confrontation (1985) 42–43,Google Scholar note; Kloosterboer, W., Involuntary Lnbour, 204Google Scholar.

45 ‘Uitdrukkelijk en onherroepelijk’, Boeke, J. H., Economie van Indonesia (3rd rev. ed.; Haarlem 1951) 185Google Scholar.

46 Gould, , Americans in Sumatra, 29–30Google Scholar. Gould boldly concludes: ‘One of the best results of Sumatran dependence on the American market was the improvement of labor conditions on the plantations’. Also: Emerson, R., Malaysia (1937) 46Google Scholar; Klaveren, A. van, The Dutch Colonial System (1953) 181Google Scholar; Vandenbosch, A., The Dutch Emi Indies (1944) 291Google Scholar; Stoler, , Cafritalism, 42–43,Google Scholar note.

47 Stoler, , Capitalism, 42–43.Google Scholar Numbers of indentured labourers on Sumatra declined from 336,000 (1930) to 170,500 (1933). Ibid. Free labourers in percentages: on Sumatra's Eastcoast 23,7% (1929) to 93% (1934) to 94,4% (1938). Outer Regions: 13,5% (1929) to 96,3% (1934) to 97,9% (1938). Boeke, , Economie, 185Google Scholar.

48 Stoler, , Capitalism, 42–43Google Scholar.

49 Consul J. Crosby to A. Chamberlain, 28 January 1929. PRO, FO 371/13481.

50 Crosby to Chamberlain, 28 January 1929. PRO, FO 371/13481.

51 Consul to A. Henderson (Colonial Office), 7 November 1930. PRO, CO 273/567/4.

52 Confidential Report Treub 1929. ARA, Archive Federatie van Verenigingen van Cultuurondememingen (Federabo) 178.

53 Consul J. Crosby to A. Chamberlain, 28 January 1929. PRO, FO 371/13481.

54 Confidential Report Treub 1929: ‘Aangezien ik er de voorkeur aan gaf, hem niet te ontmoeten, daar ik, de heer Thomas kennende, van een gesprek met hem niet het minste nut verwachtte, had ik reeds voor zijn aankomst voor een uitnodiging van den Franschen consul om deel te nemen aan-een maaltijd te zijner eer, bedankt. Voor dergelijke gevallen is de staat van mijn gezondheid een prachtig excuus.’

55 ‘Een heel gezelligen lunch’ (a very pleasant lunch), it was recorded by the Ondernemersraad. ‘Notulen der Jaarlijkse Algemeene Leedenvergadering van de Ondernemersraad voor Nederlandsch-Indie’, 4 July 1929. Archive Ondernemersraad Nederlandsch-Indie: 20.

56 Crosby to Chamberlain, 28January 1929. PRO, FO 371/13481.

57 International Labour Organisation. Penal Sanctions (indigenous Workers) convention 1939 (No. 65) and International Labour Organisation. Abolition of Penal sanctions (Indigenous Workers) Convention 1955 (No. 104).

58 Roberts, B. C., Ijibour in the Tropical Territories of the Commonwealth (London 1964) 170–171;Google ScholarParmer, J. N., Colonial Labour Policy and Administration (New York 1960) 37Google Scholar; Hyam, R., ‘The Colonial Office Mind. 1900–1914’, Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History 8 (1978–1979) 30–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

59 Banton, M. K., ‘Colonial Office Supervision on the Introduction and Revision of Labour Legislation in British Africa’ (PhD thesis; London 1993) 122Google Scholar; Kubicek, R.V., The Administration of Imperialism (Durham 1969) 153Google Scholar.

60 Speech printed in The Times (1 04 1895)Google Scholar.

61 Morgan, D. J., The Official History of Colonial Development. Volume I: The Origins of British Aul Policy. 1924–1945 (London 1980) xxiii and 23–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

62 Banton, , ‘Colonial Office Supervision’, 119Google Scholar.

63 CLC Minutes (1), 22 May 1933. PRO, CO 323/117/8041.

64 CLC (10). PRO, CO 888/1.

65 Banton, , “Colonial Office Supervision', 160Google Scholar.

66 See for an interesting account on his appointment: Gupta, P.S., Imperialism and the British Ijibour Movement. 1914–1964 (London 1975) 251CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 CLC (36) Memorandum Orde Browne, July 1938. PRO, CO 888/1. 68 This was earlier concluded by British official Susan Lawrence, who had warned the Colonial Office that serious abuse would follow if the clauses were not instantly removed from the ordinances. Gupta, Imperialism, 250. On Susan Lawrence's study and advises: PRO, CO 318/423/71107; CO 318/423/6 and CO 318/423/12.

69 Browne, J. Orde, Utbour Contlilions in the West Indies (1939) 50,Google Scholar 88, 179 and 197–198.

70 On this episode of Javanese indentured labour in Malaya see: Browne, Orde, UUmur Contlilions in Ceylon, Mauritius and Malaya (1943)Google Scholar; Parmer, , Colonial Uihour Policy, 110–111;Google ScholarHouben, , ‘Menyang Tanah Sabrang’, 12–14;Google Scholar High Commissioner Sir Cecil dementi to Lord Passfield, 15 October 1930. PRO, CO 273/567/4.

71 Banton, , ‘Colonial Office Supervision’, 10–11Google Scholar.

72 E.g. Hyam, , ‘The Colonial Office Mind’, 49Google Scholar.

73 A very interesting episode can be found in Rhodes House, Oxford, in the archives of the ASAPS; MSS Brit. Emp S22/G466.

74 Minute J.G. Hibbert, 26 February 1942. PRO, CO 859, Social Services Department.

75 African Ijibour Survey, International Labour Office (1958) 319.Google Scholar It was also reported that the sanction was to be found in South Africa, Southwest Africa and Belgian and Portugese territories.

76 Banton, , ‘Colonial Office Supervision’, 11Google Scholar.