HC Deb 08 June 1860 vol 159 cc202-8
MR. CAVE

said, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether his attention has been directed to the Message of the President of the United States to Congress, on the 19th day of May, respecting the Slave Trade: And, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received any recent communications from the Government of the United States, or intend making any fresh proposals to that Government on this subject? His reason for asking the question was, that an opportunity appeared to present itself for striking a decisive blow at that detestable traffic, which had for so many years disgraced Spain, and caused the expenditure of so much treasure, and the loss of so many valuable lives to this country. In the years 1856–7 the high price of sugar had given an extraordinary impetus to the slave-trade; and during the summer of that year he had had the honour of waiting with a deputation upon the noble Lord (Lord Palmerston) then, as now, at the head of Her Majesty's Government, for the purpose of suggesting some means by which the traffic might be more effectually checked. In consequence of the suggestions of the deputation, the noble Lord had initiated the two best measures that had ever been adopted since the squadron of repression was first stationed in those seas. Through the right hon. Baronet, the Secretary for India, then First Lord of the Admiralty (Sir Charles Wood) he sent steam gunboats into the Cuban waters, and instructed the naval officers in command, that when a Spanish slaver was taken without papers or colours, which was generally the case, she should be considered as having forfeited her nationality, and should be taken into a British, instead of a Spanish Port; so that the liberated negroes might really regain their liberty, instead of being retained in virtual slavery, under the name of Emancipados, which would have been their fate in Cuba. He (Mr. Cave) had had the honour of submitting to the Admiralty a plan drawn up with great care by persons intimately acquainted with the West Indies, marking out the best cruising ground, in which there would be the least risk of coming into collision with the lawful American traders. He fully believed that the Government of the Unitel States was as sincere as our own in their endeavours to suppress this odious traffic. He did not believe that the great mass of the American people would tolerate for a moment the revival of the slave trade to America, which had sometimes been talked of. All accounts showed that the officers of the United States Navy employed on this duty performed it with zeal, and without favour. But it could not be denied that a considerable amount of American capital was employed in the slave trade. The small but active section who so disgraced themselves and their country, and on whom the employment and success of these gunboats had fallen like a thunderbolt, were determined that they should be recalled. If there was one point upon which Americans were more sensitive than another, it was the right of search; relying upon this, these slave traders got up complaints of insult to the American flag; most of them grossly exaggerated, many of them utterly false; so that the American people became excited, their Government uneasy, till at length Her Majesty's Government, to avoid unpleasant consequences, recalled the gunboats, or, which amounted to the same thing, prohibited their interfering with the American flag. This was in 1858. Since which time the Cuban planter had imported as many slaves as he wanted. The whole number in the Island was said to be 400,000, of whom 10 per cent died annually, and there was no natural increase. We learned from other sources, that 40,000 Africans were imported every year, which exactly supplied the loss; and if any more were required, they were supplied by the equally atrocious slave trade from China and Yucatan. Now, it seemed monstrous that this should be allowed to go on in the teeth of England and America, and in defiance of the most solemn treaties. And so thought the President of the United States, for he concluded a message to Congress, on the 19th May last, which appeared in The Times of Tuesday last, in these words:— That it is truly lamentable that Great Britain and the United States should be obliged to spend such a vast amount of blood and treasure for the suppression of the African slave trade, when the only portions of the civilized world, where it is tolerated and encouraged, are the Spanish Islands of Cuba and Porto Rico. He omitted, indeed, to mention, that it was the abuse of the American flag, which caused the chief difficulty. Lord Malmesbury had done as much as man could do, as the Slave Trade Papers presented to Parliament showed, to obtain a modification of the American law in this respect; but he had only obtained a long argumentative despatch from General Cass, which closed the published correspondence, and which did not advance the question one iota. He (Mr. Cave) believed the United States Government were powerless in this respect; and could not, if they wished, run counter to the prejudices of the people. Here, however, a fresh advance towards action in this matter seemed to be made by the President. The Americans were bound by the Ashburton Treaty to have eighty guns employed in the service. Half that number in light steamers would be more efficient than their present armament. The Cuba coast was easily watched. The navigable channels were not very wide. The wind almost always blew in one direction. For about four hours in the morning, between the land and sea breezes, there was usually a dead calm, giving steamers an immense advantage over sailing vessels approaching the land. A joint system of cruising might be adopted with a proper code of signals; so that whenever a suspicious vessel, with an American flag, approached within sight of a British cruiser, the latter might signalize to an American cruiser to come up and overhaul her. Other means might have been suggested; but he had already overstepped the limits of a question. His excuse being this unexpected opportunity, and the importance of the subject to the interests of humanity, and the credit of the country.

MR. KINNAIRD

thanked the hon. Gentleman for having introduced the question, and asked the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, whether any representations had been made to the American Government relating to a co-operation on the part of that country with the Government of England, by which the vessels of the United States might cruise in company with Her Majesty's ships. This joint action might make up for the defects in the law, and by the co-operation this iniquitous traffic might be put down.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Before I answer the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cave), I wish, in justice to the public servant who has been alluded to by the hon. and learned Member for the University of Dublin (Mr. Whiteside), to state my entire concurrence with the observations he has made in reference to Sir Justin Shiel. It is due to a public servant who has obtained great distinction, and who has now retired from active service, that his character should be retained unsullied.

As to the Question of the hon. Gentleman in regard to the slave trade, it is a subject that must always interest the House and the country. I can add nothing to the statement of the hon. Member for Shoreham as to the negotiations of Lord Malmesbury and the attempts that were made to excite the jealousy of the Americans on the right of search. It is unfortunately but too true that the slave trade is still extensively carried on by Cuba. I believe from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves are annually brought into that island from Africa, and it is perfectly true that this trade is carried on in contempt and violation of treaties between this country and Spain. The increase of the traffic arises from various causes; one is the jealousy of the American Government as to any interference with ships bearing the American flag; another cause is the imperfection of the American law on this subject. In the English Treaty there is an article called "the equipment article," by which vessels equipped for the slave trade can be seized by English cruisers; but there is no such provision and no such power given to the American cruisers by the American law. Therefore, vessels on the coast of Africa, though completely equipped for the traffic, and waiting off the harbours to embark a cargo of slaves, if they are seen under the American flag, cannot be interfered with by our cruisers; and if they are pointed out to an American cruiser it is also unable to interfere with the vessel, because, having no slaves on board, there is no provision in the American law to justify the seizure. There is another imperfection of the American law in regard to vessels carrying no flag or papers. A slaver off the coast of Cuba having no flag can be seized by an English cruiser; but if she destroys her flag and papers she cannot be seized by an American cruiser. Her Majesty's Government has proposed to the United States a plan of co-operation, by which English and American cruisers sailing together, one would be able to seize slavers bearing the American flag, while the other could take those slavers which showed no flag at all, so that in cither case it should be impossi- ble for the suspected vessel to escape. That proposal is now under the consideration of the American Government, but we have never obtained from that Government a promise to amend their law in the particulars to which I have referred. I fear those statements are well founded, according to which it is not likely any proposition to make the laws against the slave trade more stringent would at present obtain the sanction of Congress, But the question has engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government, and a despatch I propose to transmit to the different Powers, will explain the state of the law on the subject. It is certainly shocking and mortifying to reflect, that after all the efforts that we have made, and the solemn treaties that have been concluded with that view, we have not been able totally to destroy the slave trade. There is one point in which I do see a prospect of some good being effected. The hon. Member has made an allusion to China. No doubt the kidnapping Chinese by the most atrocious means, and removing them from their country, is to be equally condemned as the slave trade. But there is this distinction between this practice and the African slave traffic. Wherever the slave trade exists in Africa there have been previous wars, man hunting, horrible and constant destruction of villages, and the ruin of that degree of civilization which it is always the object of the British Government to promote. The case of the traffic from China is different. There the people are highly civilized, under the protection of severe laws, and the governors and persons in authority possess very sufficient powers if they choose to exercise them. It has been thought better to employ the agency and aid of the Chinese authorities, to put an end to this kidnapping, and to substitute for it a system of voluntary emigration, of which great numbers of persons in China are ready to avail themselves. In this direction, by acting together with other nations, I see some prospect of improvement. When we compare the state of things which now exists in the case of the slave trade with that which several years ago prevailed, and the diminution which the traffic has undergone, we are afforded the consolation that there is no just reason for abandoning the hope that it may be ultimately altogether abolished.

I may in conclusion say, in reply to the Question of the hon. Gentleman opposite, (Mr. S. FitzGerald) that we possess no official information from the French Government with reference to the extension of the time for the conversion of ad valorem duties, although there is private information which induces me to think that further time will be required.

MR. DANBY SEYMOUR

hoped that as a very grave accusation had been made against him about an hour and a half before by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, he might he allowed to take advantage of the present opportunity to make a reply to it. It was not his habit to bring charges in that House or elsewhere, more especially against public servants who had long performed their duty to their country, without sufficient grounds; but he had felt called upon to make the observations which he had offered to the House on Friday last because of the change of policy towards Persia which the retirement of Sir Henry Rawlinson from his position in that country was supposed to indicate. In speaking of the opposite policy, which he had characterized as "the bullying system" he had found it necessary to advert to the gentleman to whom the right hon. Member for the University of Dublin had referred, and he had stated that under the operation of that system British influence in Persia had been destroyed. Colonel Sheil had never, he might add, been able to procure the abolition of slavery in that country—the boon being refused so long as he was at the Embassy at Teheran, which he had only left the Embassy a few days when the Shah had conceded to Colonel Farrant that which had been previously denied. He might further state that Colonel Sheil was not only in the habit of flogging his own servants, but had insisted that the Government of Persia should flog the Persians generally—at least so far as he (Mr. D. Seymour) could understand the circumstances of the case from the despatch which had been sent out by the Foreign Office to put a stop to the system. Then, again, Colonel Sheil had, he believed, nothing to do with overthrowing the slave trade, which important concession was the work of Mr. Murray. With regard to the Convention of Herat he need do nothing more than refer to the words which had been used with respect to it by the present Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who described it as extremely loose and ill-drawn. Having made those remarks he could assure hon. Members that he had felt extreme reluctance in bringing forward the subject which had led to them, and in being obliged to comment upon the acts of a gentleman whose private life was, he believed, most respectable, and who was the brother of one who had been among the greatest ornaments of that House. He did not, however, see how he could adequately explain the distinction between the two different policies which had prevailed in Persia, and point out the reasons why, in his opinion, the one had failed, and why the other should be adopted without introducing the name of Colonel Sheil, against whom he might add, he had no personal feeling whatever. He might be permitted to take the present opportunity of repeating his belief that, our influence in Persia must depend very much on our Minister in that country; and in support of that view he might mention the fact that, when the late Shah died, Colonel Farrant, who was at the time our Chargé d'Affaires at Teheran, had, by taking the charge of everything upon himself, and by sending letters to the various Governors, been enabled through his personal influence, to prevent the breaking out of those civil commotions which were usual on such occasions, and to procure the succession of the present Shah to the throne without difficulty. He sincerely hoped that the choice of a successor to Sir Henry Rawlinson which the Government had made would be equally advantageous, and that the eccentric habits which had to a certain extent been indulged in in Constantinople, would be laid aside in Persia. Nobody, he might add, wished better to the gentleman who was now about to go there than himself.