MR. DIGBY SEYMOURcalled attention to the fact that a British Vice Consul was commissioned last year for Abbeokuta, in Western Africa; that on his arrival, and presenting his credentials to the native authorities, he was peremptorily refused permission to remain in 665 that capacity, and was compelled to return to England; and asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Whether he could explain the cause of this rejection of a British representative, and whether any steps had been taken by the Foreign Office in consequence? Abbeokuta was about eighty miles from Lagos, and was a place of considerable consequence in relation to the slave trade. Last year a Mr. Taylor had been appointed Vice Consul there. On his arrival he caused a communication to be made to the King of Abbeokuta announcing his arrival and his office. The King, in the presence of his chiefs, ultimately gave him an audience. Mr. Taylor was first asked whether he was a merchant, and then whether he was a missionary. Having replied in the negative, to both of these queries, he proceeded to explain the objects of his presence in that place—namely, to facilitate friendly relations with the King, and to encourage the commerce of the country. The King then informed him that he could not receive him in the capacity of consul. Mr. Taylor, having returned to his residence, received an intimation, that unless he quitted the place before night, the roof of his house would be burnt over his head. He thereupon immediately returned to England. Now, several reasons were alleged for this conduct on the part of the African King. One was that he was incensed at the conduct pursued by certain British officials in respect to his mode of dealing with his chiefs. It was stated that two of his wives had escaped from his court, and taken refuge at Lagos. The ladies being pursued by some of his chiefs, they were arrested at Lagos, brought up prisoners before the court there, and were sentenced by the authorities of Lagos to three months' confinement and hard labour. Remonstrances against this treatment, it was alleged, were made; but without success. This was said to be one cause for the irritation of the King towards this country. It was also said that the King was indignant at our sending a consul into his dominions without any previous intimation on our part that we were about to take such a step. The position of Abbeokuta, in the centre of a great cotton district, made it a matter of the greatest importance to us to have a representative stationed there. The place had a wall around it eighteen miles in extent, and contained a population of 150,000. The 666 hon. and learned Gentleman concluded by putting the Question.
§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET, in answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Sir F. Smith), said, that there was no objection to produce any correspondence which the Admiralty might possess on the utility of the Ionian Islands. He had been unable to find anything of interest on that subject; but if the hon. and gallant Gentleman would himself call at the Admiralty, he could look at the papers; or if he would give him the dates, search should be made for them.
His hon. Friend (Mr. Lindsay) asked why the recommendations of the Transport Committee had not been carried out? The transport service of the Admiralty was admirably organized, and they would willingly undertake the transport both of the Indian and Colonial Departments. But the Indian Department objected, and the Colonial Office also gave reasons (which were laid on the table of the House last year) against the emigration branch coming under the Admiralty. The hon. Member for West Norfolk (Mr. Bentinck) had re-opened the question of the composition of the Admiralty. He did not think that was a matter which could be advantageously discussed on the present occasion. The hon. Member complained that the members of the Board were constantly changing. Well, the present members of the Board did not desire any changes. They were perfectly willing to remain at their posts, so that he quite agreed with the hon. Member on this point. He also alluded to the reductions made in the navy this year, which he said resembled the reductions in 1835. [Mr. BENTINCK: No.] If the hon. Member would allow him to make his statement in Committee on the Naval Estimates he should, he hoped, succeed in convincing him and the House that the Estimates, had been reduced without any injury to the efficiency of the navy. The hon. Member said the Government proposed very large Estimates one year, and that then, if a cry for economy arose, they suddenly reduced them below the proper point. The course of the Government, however, had been very fair and uniform. The year 1860–1 was a year of reconstruction, and saw the Navy Estimates at their climax—£12,836,100. Next year they were reduced to £12,640,588. In 1862–3 they were again reduced to £11,794,305; and now the Government proposed to re- 667 duce them to £10,736,000. These successive reductions had been gradual, and had been attained without injury to the navy. The hon. Member had also alluded to the French transport service. The Admiralty were, of course, aware that the French were building very magnificent transport ships, for cavalry as well as infantry. But the hon. Member for West Norfolk talked as if the Admiralty could stop the building of these vessels. They had no power to interfere. The French Government thought it necessary to possess these transport ships, and it was only just to remember that they had not the facilities which the Government of this country possessed in our mercantile marine. The French had a large colony in Algiers, and they required, from time to time, to transport large bodies of troops to that country. Then the hon. Member told the House to look at the French dockyards, and charged the Admiralty with reducing the strength of the dockyards to 10,000 or 13,000 men. The fact was, the Admiralty were employing 16,600 men in the dockyards and factories. They were also having large works executed by contract; so that they employed altogether more men than the hon. Gentleman supposed. He would, however, reserve his full explanation for his official statement.
§ MR. LAYARD, in answer to the hon. Member for Southampton (Mr. D. Seymour), said, he could not pretend to say what were the true motives which had actuated the King of Abbeokuta in declining the presence of a British Vice Consul. The motives alleged were first, that we had not given him the assistance which we ought to have done in his war with the King of Dahomey; and, secondly, that Mr. Taylor's arrival had not been announced in a proper manner. In point of fact, however, the head men of the tribe had requested Mr. Taylor to be sent, and it was therefore foolish to say that the Abbeokutans had not received due intimation of his arrival. He (Mr. Layard), however, believed that the true reason that had influenced the King in his conduct to Mr. Taylor was, that he had not been behaving well of late, and we had been obliged to give him a little good advice. The Abbeokutans had been carrying on a very unnecessary war with a friendly tribe, and had mixed themselves up with the slave trade, and had also plundered a considerable amount of property belonging to Dr. 668 Bakie, who was stationed on the Niger. The chiefs were very angry with us for remonstrating with them on these subjects and demanding reparation; they declared they would not have any Englishman living amongst them except in the capacity of a merchant or of a missionary; they had those two classes of persons established in the country, and they did not want a third. They had treated Mr. Taylor in a very unbecoming manner; but the Government had no fault whatever to find with that gentleman. The Government had informed the Abbeokutans that they must apologize for their treatment of Mr. Taylor, and make reparation not only for the pillage to which he had already referred, but for the robbery and murder of certain British and Lagos traders committed since Mr. Taylor's expulsion. With respect to the two wives, he feared he had no satisfactory answer to give the hon. and learned Member. He had better apply to the Colonial Office.
§ MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he had made inquiries as to any wish or attempt on the part of the missionaries to interfere, and found it quite a mistake. He was convinced it could be shown that Mr. Townsend was not unwilling, but was anxious, that a Consul should be appointed, and he had hoped to hear that the Government had made arrangements to secure the presence of a Consul in that place.