The rise of and expansion of Empires has been closely related to Universal human rights as clearly depicted in the judicial cases that took place in the 1870s within the British Empire in Hong Kong and the Gold Coast now Ghana. In each case the Judge, had a daunting task of establishing human rights violation in the form of slavery in the British colonial empires. In the process of doing so, the important connections between establishing empires and limitations of liberal imperialist ideologies and violation of Universal human rights are clearly showcased. Note when Justice Smale ruled in favor of Kwok-a-sing in the case of the Chinese coolies arguing that Kwok was justified in murdering the captain and crewmembers in a struggle to free himself from bondage.
The Judge found sufficient evidence of human rights issues in the case and therefore was bend on deciding in favor of a collie who even though may have chosen to be slaved off or may have been pirate himself as he confesses during the case that he was involved in other incidents in the high sea. The Judge as an Abolitionist himself was keen to send a clear message that his historic decision was to be seen as a clear manifestation of using the Judicial system to end human rights violation in the high seas. Although his decision also fortified the influence of the British Empire to the utmost corners of the globe and his landmark decision indirectly asserted British authority in the name of defending human rights and the nineteenth-century British liberalism within the context of empire.
Therefore, in the case of the British Court in Hong Kong, the rights being defended by the abolitionist Judge, Smale did not just ensure freedom for Chinese emigrants but also justified the British empire, thus further worsening Chinese bondage. In the same way, British abolitionists criminalized slavery in the British Empire and cautiously turned African slaves captured on the sea into indentured laborers who ended up supporting a system of regulated contract employment. As seen in the case of Abina’s possible prosecution of Quamina Eddoo, because the Gold Coast was a British Colony affected by the criminalization law of slavery.
However, in the case of Abina, the Judge was too careful to find Quamina guilty in order to protect the integrity and interests in the British Protectorate. After the abolition of the slave trade, their economic interests and their civilization mission in further parts of the globe dovetailed nicely with their imperial projects to expand their empire. As the author notes, ‘‘the civilizational mission that would bring liberal freedom to the barbarous parts of the globe was not just a veil to hide capitalist exploitation but was in fact a foundational principle upon which empire was built’’.
The moral justification of the British Empire was firmly entrenched in the abolition of the Atlantic Slave trade in the nineteenth century as a way of ending human rights violations but also to open up and disguise other trading avenues in places like Africa and Asia. Note when Quamina’s lawyer asked Abina, ‘‘You were not aware that all slaves in the protectorate have been declared free and what then led you to come here and complain of being a slave? ’Also, Edmund, one of the staunchest critics of British Empire argued that establishing a monopoly of power for the East India Company required them to act for the benefit of their subjects. As Britain was both at the forefront of the anti-coolie trade as in the case of the Chinese coolies bound for Callao but on the other hand was also endeavoring to establish an indentured labor system in their other colonies like in the case of Abina in the Gold Coast.
The British judge in Abina’s case saw her as more of an indentured and forced laborer whose situation did not qualify as slavery in his eyes while as for the Kwok’s case the abolitionist Judge saw him as more of a human bondage whose fundamental human rights and freedom have been violated under British and International Law. Note when the Judge Smale emphatically declared that the coolie trade is the slave trade and called for a reform of the Slave Trade Abolition Acts to encompass coolies. His Justification was the view that the Chinese were victims of a cruel and corrupt labor brokers and therefore saw the mutiny of Nouvelle Penelope as part of the evils of slavery even if it meant he had to overlook evidence of Chinese complicity with their recruitment and even evidence that Kwok himself may have been a serial pirate who looted several ships. The coolie and forced labor were a new form of slavery in disguise.
That is why Judge Smale used Kwok’s case to send out a message across the British Empire that slavery in all forms needed to be abolished. The case of the Chinese coolies was just a microcosm of indentured labor which constituted a bondage that violated universal human rights and Smale saw it as microcosm to the real happenings across the British empire which he wanted to point out in his Judgment with the Kwok’s case. While in the case of Abina in the Gold Coast, there was a well organized and regulated system of forced labor in a non-British coolie system which was endemic with universal human rights abuse even if it meant simultaneously justifying the expansion and solidification of the British imperial power. Which is why the Judge in Abina’s case ruled in favor of Quamina because he is seen as a symbolic character representing the British liberalism and imperialism through the indirect rule system in which they notably used locals to exploit subjects in their protectorates. So even though the Judge had enough evidence to proof that was a slave girl because the evidence proofs that she was sold and married off which points to the fact that only slaves are sold, but the judge said the evidence was still weak to consider it slavery. Note when James Davies informs Abina of the Judge’s decision, ‘‘I asked him to at least try Yaw for illegally selling you as a slave, but he said the evidence was too weak and refused to do it’’. Note also in Abina’s testimony when she emphatically said ‘’I know we were slaves’’.
So, judging from the similitudes of the two Judicial cases one can conclude that there were sufficient evidences beyond reasonable doubt that human rights abuses were involved related to one way or the other to the liberal policies of the British Empire. Although both cases had elements of human right issues and dehumanization of subjects in the British oversea colonies, the Judges had used their position and authority to assert their power in different ways. For instance, Chief Justice Smale was highly committed to the liberation of the coolies and acted upon it by calling for a drastic reform to the Slave Trade Abolition to incorporate the coolies. Notes when he wrote in his Nouvelle Penelope Judgement, ‘‘Is it possible that a being as man can according to law, become a slave, even by his own consent, I say it is impossible in law’’. He therefore considered it as outright incidents of slavery which warranted prohibition rather than regulation. Note again when he said ‘‘the utter failure of all previous legislation to regulate coolie emigration appears to me to conclusively show that prohibition and not regulation is the remedy, and the only remedy’. As evidence of this, Smale on two occasions refused Kwok-a-sing’s extradition due to his belief that the French crew of Nouvelle Penelope forced the Chinese coolies onto the vessel against their will and therefore viewed it as morally right to not try or extradite Kwok for crimes of murder and privacy. He further supported his claim by his testimony of several Chinese suicides on the ship as enough evidence that were being held against their will. Therefore, his judgement had a sweeping effect on the coolie trade as a whole especially labor contracts where one side was not free to consent voluntarily to the terms of an agreement. He argued that just as any person deprived of his property would have the right to regain it, so too were the Chinese who had been deprived of their liberties and freedom through what he describes as enslavement.
While Judge Melton was more about the enforcing and protection of the British Liberal interest in the Protectorates even if it meant slavery in subtle forms, note his conversation with James Davies when the case of Abina was first brought before him in his chambers, ‘‘But you put me in a bad position. On the one hand, her majesty has outlawed slavery and especially the importation of slaves from Asante. On the other hand, we don’t want to stir things up, we can’t afford to have slave owners becoming angry with us’’. Even though Judge Melton clearly admits that slavery had been abolished in the British Empire but still contradicts that they can’t be angry with slave owners in the colony. From this, it was clear that the British protectorates and crown colonies had been used indirectly to form a basis for the foundation of their empire following the abolition of the slave trade to make it a subtler form of universal human rights issue in the eyes of other competing nations in the slave trade and the international community at large.
However, it is also very important to note that both cases although different in circumstances, both could be seen to be asserting the same British authority in their overseas supposed territory or Protectorate thereby using it as an avenue to build their empire in one way or the other. For instance, what right did British courts have to evade laws and assert their political control in Asia by refusing to extradite Kwok-a-sing to China on two occasions. This case gave credence to the affirmation of the British Legal imperialism in one of her overseas controlled territories as part of the British empire. In a similar vein, the Abina case also showcased that the British were bend on maintaining peace and stability in her colonies disguised in the name of protecting fundamental human rights to protect the Britain empire as there were many natural rights abuses prevalent in her controlled territories. Note Judge Melton’s conversation with the lawyers in his chambers, ‘Her majesty’s government is interested in maintaining peace and stability of this colony, and we cannot afford the kind of upheaval that we would cause by going around liberating slaves’’. He continued by asserting that they must enforce the rules of civilization in the colonies. The notion that the British defended Universal human rights in her controlled territories across Asia (Kwok-a-sing case) while the same system was mute in violation of human rights abuses in Africa (the Abina case) was built on the premise to authorize liberal ideologies around the British empire.
Similarly, In Hong Kong the British advocate of human rights was also a way of protecting their interest of the British Empire. When Justice Smale saw Chinese coolies as fully abled men who deserved rights, it could be interpreted that he considered them to be humans who should enjoy their freedom like any other in the British empire. Hypothetically, the case could have been differently handled had it occurred elsewhere outside the British empire. They did not want to undermine their authority over the colonies.
It was as if he used the case to send a message that Britain was more interested in curbing universal human rights in order to assert more power and imperialism over its colonies across the British empire. As Michael Kempe argued that ‘Great Britain used the universal right of punishing pirates to legitimize the claim of the British Admiralty to universal jurisdiction’.