By Ida L. Vos.
In 1847, Wolter Robert van Hoëvell argued that slavery should be ended in the Dutch East Indies. Van Hoëvell was the pastor for the Malay Community in Batavia – now called Jakarta – the capital of the East Indies. A possible method of abolition that came up was freeing all children that would be born to enslaved women in the East Indies from then on, thereby phasing out slavery. Van Hoëvell’s campaign for ending slavery in the East Indies brought him into contact with J.J. Rochussen, governor general of the East Indies. Ultimately, Van Hoëvell’s efforts in 1847 did not result in concrete steps towards the end of slavery in the East Indies.
This much I know for sure. Accounts by both Rochussen and Van Hoëvell about these events survive in the historical record. They both agreed on the facts as I just described them. However, on further details, they disagreed significantly. Especially in regards to Rochussen’s actions during the process.
A year after the events, in 1848, Van Hoëvell published his account. Angry about what he described as Rochussen’s inaction, he published a thorough report of the events, and included the proposal he had written in 1847. According to this report, what had happened was the following: Van Hoëvell and his friend W. Poolman had wanted to found an association with the purpose of achieving the end of slavery in the Dutch East Indies. While making preparations to found this association, governor general Rochussen told them that he also believed abolition to be desirable, and asked them to write a memorandum explaining their thoughts about the issue. On 23 September 1847, they sent the requested memorandum. This memorandum contained their reasoning as to why slavery in the East Indies should be abolished, and four potential methods of how to go about this: 1) decide now that slavery would be fully abolished in twenty-four years, without monetary compensation for the enslavers, 2) decide that children born to enslaved mothers after a specific date, would be born free, 3) also free children born to enslaved mothers, but with monetary compensation for enslavers, 4) immediately free all enslaved people, with full monetary compensation for enslavers.
Soon after they sent this memorandum to Rochussen, Rochussen once again assured them that he agreed with them, and showed them a proposal he had written on the topic. Rochussen then asked them to leave the case to him, and to not publish their memorandum, which they agreed to. After this, nothing happened. Despite a reminder by Van Hoëvell and Poolman, Rochussen never got back to them. The strong implication of Van Hoëvell’s report here, is that Rochussen pretended to be on their side, in order to silence them: when they wanted to found an association, he prevented this by telling them he was on their side; when they had written a memorandum explaining their objections to slavery, and proposing various methods for abolition, he asked them specifically not to publish, and once again assured them he was on their side. An unrelated conflict between the two men in 1848 resulted in Van Hoëvell returning to the Netherlands. Angered by Rochussen’s inaction on his abolitionist promises, Van Hoëvell considered his promise not to publish the memorandum void. He therefore published the source I drew all the above information from: a report of his correspondence with Rochussen, and a version of the memorandum he had sent to Rochussen. Was this published memorandum the same as the one he had sent Rochussen in 1847? It’s impossible to know for sure. Van Hoëvell wrote in his preamble that he “only added very slight additions and changes to this writing, other than that, it is quite like we offered it [to Rochussen]”.[1] I have not found any record that suggests Rochussen, or anyone else involved, responded to this publication by Van Hoëvell. This may suggest that there were no falsehoods significant enough to justify a rebuttal by Rochussen. On the other hand, even if Rochussen fundamentally disagreed with the facts as presented by Van Hoëvell, he might have chosen not to give more attention to Van Hoëvell’s publication by responding publicly.
Rochussen’s account of events comes to us years later. In 1854, both men were members of Parliament. Van Hoëvell had just once again proposed ending slavery in the East Indies, and again included freeing children born to enslaved mothers as part of the method of abolition. It is Rochussen’s response to this proposal that constitutes Rochussen’s only account of the events of 1847 that I have found. This account is much more brief and succinct than Van Hoëvell’s, and therefore is much less detailed. Still, there is a significant difference between this account and Van Hoëvells, primarily when it comes to how Rochussen responded to Van Hoëvell’s 1847 proposal. According to Rochussen, Van Hoëvell had indeed written a proposal about slavery in 1847. It is not entirely clear from Rochussen’s account whether it was Van Hoëvell who had brought up the idea to free children born to enslaved mothers, or whether this came up in subsequent discussions in the East Indies colonial government. Either way, the idea to free children born to enslaved mothers, without monetary compensation for enslavers, was brought before the East Indies Supreme Court. The Court advised negatively: it argued that doing this without monetary compensation for enslavers would infringe on their property rights. Rochussen was still unsatisfied, and wanted to fight further for the idea of freeing children born to enslaved mothers. Therefore, he also consulted a man called Wichers. Rochussen describes him in his parliamentary account as “a statesman, who was present in the Dutch East Indies at that time to introduce new legislation”.[2] This was true to an extent: Wichers was present in the Dutch East Indies, and he was working on new legislation. However, importantly, Wichers was also the president of the Supreme Court.[3] So, Rochussen consulting Wichers, which Rochussen presented as him as really going the extra mile for this legislation, might have been more or less one process with the Supreme Court consultation. Another notable implied difference between the two accounts is that Rochussen claims that it was the infringement on property rights of freeing children without monetary compensation that resulted in the Supreme Court’s negative response to Van Hoëvell’s memorandum. However, according to Van Hoëvell, he also proposed freeing children with monetary compensation. Why did Rochussen’s purported advocacy for Van Hoëvell’s proposal focus only on the suggestion of freeing children without monetary compensation? This might be partially explained by the context of Rochussen’s account: he was speaking in a parliamentary debate about a proposal to free children without compensation; therefore, Rochussen might have chosen only to focus on the most similar proposal made in 1847. However, this still leaves unexplained why Rochussen was unable to enact one Van Hoëvell’s third or fourth method of abolition, which would have included monetary compensation.
Van Hoëvell responded to Rochussen’s points on the same day. He did not directly contradict Rochussen. However, the words he chose to refer to what Rochussen claimed about the events of 1847, do imply that he did not really believe what Rochussen stated about his intentions in 1847. He first addressed another point that Rochussen made. Rochussen had said that he did not claim the floor to defend the government’s proposal. To this, Van Hoëvell’s response was “I gladly believe it, gentlemen, because there is no governmental proposal [about slavery]”.[4] Coming off this sarcastic affirmation that Van Hoëvell believed Rochussen on this point, he goes on to say: “He informed us, that in his previous position he did want to act, but he was not able to act. He does not want to blame the high government. It was the circumstances that were the cause.”[5] The juxtaposition of the sarcastic clarification that he did believe Rochussen about one point, to the careful use of “he informed us”, implies that Van Hoëvell does not believe what Rochussen is saying here.
So, where does this leave us? Rochussen’s account that he took Van Hoëvell’s proposal entirely seriously seems suspect. The combination of claiming to be opposed to slavery, while at the same time putting up practical roadblocks to abolition was a common tactics among those that opposed abolitionists in the nineteenth century. We cannot verify if or how Rochussen consulted the East Indies Supreme Court, as the archive of the Court was destroyed during the Second World War.[6] Did he also bring up Van Hoëvell’s proposals that included monetary compensation? There is no way to know. At the same time, we cannot be sure of Van Hoëvell’s account either. He acknowledges that the published version of his memorandum was not identical to the original version, saying there were “very slight additions and changes”, which may be an understatement; perhaps he added the proposals that included monetary compensation in a tacit response to property right concerns that were raised. All in all, we do know for sure that freeing children born to enslaved mothers was discussed in 1847 in the Dutch East Indies, but we cannot say for sure how exactly it happened, and which role governor general Rochussen played.
[1] Wolter Robert van Hoëvell, De emancipatie der slaven in Neerlands-Indië: eene verhandeling (C. M. von Bolhuis Hoitsema, 1848), x. In the original Dutch: “Slechts zeer geringe bijvoegselen en wijzigingen heb ik bij dit geschrift gevoegd, overigens is het juist zoo als wij het hebben aangeboden.”
[2] Handelingen Tweede Kamer 1853/1854, 7 August 1854, p. 1402, zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000439713. In the original Dutch: “staatsman, destijds in Nederlandsch Indië aanwezig om daar eene nieuwe wetgeving in te voeren”.
[3] Kees Briët, Het Hooggerechtshof van Nederlands-Indïe 1819-1848: portret van een vergeten rechtscollege (Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam, 2015), 216.
[4] Handelingen Tweede Kamer 1853/1854, 7 August 1854, p. 1406, zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000439713. In the original Dutch: “Ik geloof het gaarne, Mijne Heeren, want er is geen voorstel van de Regering.”
[5] Handelingen Tweede Kamer 1853/1854, 7 August 1854, p. 1406, zoek.officielebekendmakingen.nl/0000439713. In the original Dutch: “Hij heeft ons berigt, dat hij in eene vorige betrekking heeft willen handelen maar niet heeft kunnen handelen. Hij wil de schuld niet werpen op het opperbestuur. De omstandigheden zijn er de oorzaak van geweest.”
[6] Briët, Het Hooggerechtshof van Nederlands-Indïe 1819-1848, 17n4.
Racialized Motherhood 
Leave a comment