§ 1. "That a Supplementary sum, not exceeding £24,900, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1893. for the expenses of Her Majesty's Missions Abroad, and expenditure chargeable on the Consular Vote."
723§ SIR JAMES FERGUSSONI do not desire to renew the Debate we listened to with so much interest last night; but I cannot help calling attention to a rather remarkable feature in the conduct of that Debate by Her Majesty's Government. One would have thought that, in a matter peculiarly concerning one of the Departments of the Government which has been engaged for several years under successive Administrations in the conduct of a very difficult and important branch of public affairs, that we should have heard from the representative of that Department the view taken by the Government in that Department, whose Chief is so largely responsible in the matter. But whether it was the intention or not it was remarkable that by the action of the Prime Minister, and afterwards by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who at the end of the evening was in charge of the House, the Representative of the Foreign Office was prevented from addressing the House, and possibly it was remarked that the Member for Haddington, hastening to the assistance of the Government, promptly moved that the Debate be closed, and there the incident ended. I should have thought the Government would have been glad that the House should have heard the views of the Foreign Office on this question. I do not know if it will be a precedent that the Minister peculiarly concerned will not be heard. Perhaps, when the Channel Tunnel Bill comes on, the representatives of the War Office and of the Admiralty will be similarly excluded. I am the last to wish that this Debate should be in any sense a Party question. The hon. Member for Leicester last night tried to throw the responsibility on the late Government for our present position in Central Africa. He said that the danger, the cost, and the blame would rest on the late Administration. Well, Sir, if that be so— and they, undoubtedly, are responsible for much that has been done in this matter—so also, I apprehend, the honour will belong to them if they shall be found to have asserted the claims of this country to a largo share in the civilization of Africa, as we are undoubtedly committed in solemn conference, and in honour, to taking part in the further measures for the suppression of the 724 Slave Trade, and the improvement of that great Continent. But, Sir, I would rather hope that any honour there might fall on those who had taken this step might also be shared by those who succeeded us. I should hope that the desire to uphold our interests, for the opening up of new channels of trade, and the relief of our industrial classes by increased opportunities for our commerce, may not belong to the Party which sits on this side alone, but that in foreign affairs we may be actuated by higher considerations—that both Parties in the State may equally desire that this country shall continue to be powerful abroad and prosperous at home, and that the great developments which have been accomplished in past generations, when our means were infinitely inferior to what they are now, and greater difficulties had to be contended with, may, by future generations, be carried still further, and every means taken to secure that our people at home may be better employed, and so be more prosperous and contented. It would be a great pity if the impression went out from the Debate of last night that the Government were half-hearted in this matter. There were some things said which might lead to that conclusion, but we must recognise the difficulties caused by political exigencies. The Department most responsible in this matter has spoken out with no uncertain voice. We may not believe there is much necessity for inquiry in this matter. On the contrary, I think signs are not wanting to show that the Party now in power possesses within itself many of those who consider our honour is now pledged to this matter. We could not withdraw from Uganda without disgrace, and if we did so, and evil consequences were to ensue, it would reflect discredit upon this country and upon all concerned in such withdrawal. We have had enough of abortive expeditions and premature withdrawals, and I cannot believe any step is in contemplation with regard to Central Africa which would undo the good work that has been done there, or place our fellow-countrymen, whether missionaries or laymen, in peril, or which would expose those who have placed confidence in the promises of England to spoliation and destruction. I hope, therefore, the singular course the 725 debate took last night does not indicate any vacillation on the part of the Government or any intention of receding from the position we have taken up in Africa.
COLONEL NOLAN,who had an Amendment on the Paper to reduce the Vote by £1,000, called attention to the massacre of Roman Catholics in Uganda, quoting the evidence of various persons in support of his statement. He said that after this terrible massacre had taken place hundreds of women and children were sold into slavery, and the lauds of the Catholic people were taken and divided up, the Protestants most unfairly getting much the larger share of them. While he did not wish to accuse Captain Lugard of a desire to shed blood or of a greed of money, yet he did accuse him of trying to make himself supreme in the country, and of being, to a large extent, responsible for the unhappy quarrel and hostilities that took place in Uganda. His policy had the effect of at length setting one set of Christiana actively against another set, and, bearing in mind that Captain Lugard and Captain Williams were commissioned officers of the Army, he did not see how this country could entirely escape responsibility in the matter. It was satisfactory to know, however, that a thoroughly capable man had been sent out to Uganda to inquire into the question, and he only hoped that Sir G. Portal's instructions included directions that the ordinary principles of religious toleration should be observed in the country—that the same rules of fairness and toleration should be shown to the Catholics in Uganda as was shown to Catholics in every other part of Her Majesty's dominions.
§ VISCOUNT WOLMERasked what progress was being made with the delimitation in Eastern Africa by Kilina Njaro?
§ SIR E. GREYYes. The Commissioners for England and Germany differed on the spot as to certain terms. These differences have been referred home for the Government here, and at Berlin, to settle between them, with the help of the two Commissioners, who, it has been suggested, should come home to Europe to finish the delimitation. In answer to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway, it is impossible to give him 726 anything like a complete answer to the questions he has raised at the present time. It is quite true that there was, as he said, a slaughter or a killing of a certain number of natives who belonged to the Catholic or the French faction in Uganda,. But such events always attend civil war, and before it is possible to give a definite reply on the merits of the case responsible inquiry must be made into all the circumstances. The late Government instructed Captain Macdonald to make such an inquiry. The present Government have repeated those instructions, and we are bound in honour to Captain Lugard, and to every party concerned, to wait for Captain Macdouald's Report, and then come to our decision as to what the merits of the case really are. If the hon. and gallant Member presses me for a decision on the point, I can only say that the evidence at present at the disposal of the Government shows that the French Party fired the first shot, and were, therefore, to a great extent responsible for what afterwards ensued. But I do not wish to pronounce any definite opinion in view of the inquiry that is to take place. In answer to the right hon. Baronet opposite, I might say that I can assure him that he need be under no doubt that, as regards this question of Uganda, the Government fully recognises the obligations which have been imposed by the urgency of the case. It is due to the urgency of the case that the Commission under Sir G. Portal has been sent. It is not that responsibility was imposed upon the Government by the fact that the Company had a Charter, or by the fact that we had a sphere of influence—though I think it would be rather strong to say that this country was no more concerned in the question than it might have been if no Charter or sphere of influence had existed at all. The responsibility imposed on the Government—the obligations imposed on the Government—were imposed by the facts of the present and by the prospects as regarded the future. What are the facts? First of all, it is an undoubted fact that the Slave Trade was rampant in Uganda until a few years ago. [Mr. LABOUCHERE dissented.] I have any number of quotations which I shall be glad to show any hon. Members, and which go to prove that the Slave 727 Trade was rampant in Uganda, and that Uganda was the very centre of the Slave Trade at one time. We were assured that if the British East Africa Company loft Uganda the Slave Trade would again revive. There was good reason to think that it would revive. In proportion as the Congo State strengthened its administration, and as Germany strengthened hers, the Slave Trade within these quarters will decline, and, therefore, it is more likely to seek an outlet in Uganda. It would be a pretty state of things if a country within our sphere of influence was to become the home and one of the last refuges of the Slave Trade. Under all the circumstances the Government were bound to get information, and while getting that information to guard against what might happen. Then there was some responsibility with respect to the natives. King Mwanga delayed to accept the first Treaty, because he had made a Treaty with Dr. Peters, and he was not quite sure whether Dr. Peters or Captain Lugard was the stronger man, or whether Uganda was within the sphere of British influence.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREHe was compelled to accept it by violence and force.
§ SIR E. GREYWhere is the evidence of that?
§ MR. LABOUCHEREThat is what the Prime Minister said last year on the Vote for the Survey of the Mombasa Railway.
§ SIR E. GREYThe Prime Minister had not then got full information before him. What subsequent information has done is to explain Mwanga's reluctance to sign the Treaty at that moment. Mwanga was a simple savage, and the moment he was assured that Captain Lugard was a stronger man than Dr. Peters. He came over to his side. In fact, he took the only possible line which could be taken by a savage or by a civilised man either. To say that we were forcing ourselves upon him was contrary to the facts of the case, and any one who could read between the lines could see that. The Catholics, it was stated, had received a large importation of arms, while the Protestants, by the action of the representative of the Company, were left without arms, and, therefore, the missionaries had a strong case. And therefore they said:—"As you 728 have taken away our arms and left us at the mercy of those who are strongly armed, you are bound to make some provision to see that we do not suffer consequences which we might never have suffered had you not come near the place." There is one more point. We do not know what the commercial value of Uganda may be in the future. It may not be much now, but the question is as to the future. The hon. Member for Sunderland said we ought to stay and concentrate our attention at home and spend what money we can on the people here. Where are we to get the money to spend? We have to get the money by our export trade. I do not venture to assert that Uganda will produce a great export trade ["Hear, hear!"] The hon. Member who cheers that statement ironically is not in a position to disprove what I am about to say, which is this: I have numerous quotations giving the statements of a number of people who have been on the spot, and who state that the climate is good and the soil such as will produce great natural wealth. Hon. Members may disbelieve the words of these persons if they like, but to say that Uganda is for ever to remain valueless they must not only disbelieve the assertions of those who were on the spot, but they must also satisfy their constituents on the point. There is a great preponderance of statements to the effect I have stated from people who have been on the spot.
§ MR. LABOUCHERECite one.
§ SIR E. GREYI have not got the quotations with me, but I have them in the House. If hon. Members wish to have a collection of them published I shall have no objection to their being published and circulated in any constituency they like. If no Commissioner had been sent to Uganda I think the point against us would have been put most forcibly. We should have been told we had abandoned the country without inquiry—when we are told for certain that the evacuation of the country meant not only the massacre of the missionaries but also of the natives who have trusted a British Company. Then, again, if we had adopted any other course than the one we have adopted we should have been told that we wanted new markets, there was some evidence that Uganda would be valuable, 729 and yet we had not spirit enough to inquire. It would have been said that we had abandoned it without taking the trouble to make sure what the facts of the case really were and what reasons could have been given. The only reason would have been that our Empire was so large, and our population so dense, and that on the narrowest possible construction of our possible obligations we could prove we had no technical responsibility. The Government have proceeded in the only possible way open to them. They prolonged the occupation for throe months—they had no other alternative by which to gain time to decide—and having done that, then they sent a Commissioner, a man of experience and ability, to inquire. By doing that they did their best to prevent calamities, to secure peace in Uganda, and to safeguard the possible interests of this country, and any other policy would inevitably lay them open to blame and reproach.
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURTrose to make an appeal to the House. They had been discussing this Vote for the last hour, there were Resolutions in Ways and Means to be passed, and a Bill was to be introduced. If they did not dispose of these things to-day the law would be broken. They ought now to close the financial part of the proceedings and leave the evening free.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREsaid, he only wanted for one moment to register a protest against the action of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. The closure was put on the previous night and the Under Secretary did not speak. The Under Secretary, however, had got up that evening and attacked not only the Radicals, but the Prime Minister. He (Mr. Labouchere) was there to defend the Prime Minister. He would like to know whether the Under Secretary had obtained the consent of the Prime Minister to say that, when last summer the right hon. Gentleman stated that the first Treaty had been obtained by Captain Lugard by violence and fraud, he did not know the circumstances and had altered his mind at present?
§ MR. R. WALLACEdesired to know If, upon the Appropriation Bill, they would have an opportunity of answering the historical inaccuracies of the Under Secretary, to say nothing of the bad argument?
§ SIR W. HARCOURTsaid, that if he could make time he would give his hon. Friend and everyone else such opportunity as they wished, but, unfortunately, he could not make time, and time was lapsing very fast.
§ MR. A. C. MORTONdesired to protest against the speech of the Under Secretary, and to say that he would call attention to the matter on the Appropriation Bill.
§ Resolution agreed to.
§ Resolutions 2 to 10 [see pages 605–6] agreed to.
§ Resolutions [20th March] reported.