§ Order for Second Residing read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill foe now read a second time."
§ MR. LABOUCHERE (Northampton)It will be in the recollection of the House that a speech was made last night by the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs on report of Supply. We were somewhat surprised at that speech being made at the time, and particularly at the circumstances under which it was made. The day before I had moved the reduction of the Vote for Sir Gerald Portal's Mission, the Prime Minister had stated the views of the Government upon the subject, and the Debate came to an end by a Division. Yesterday at about 6 o'clock the Closure was applied, and very properly applied, to the discussion upon the Parish Councils Bill, on the ground that a certain amount of Financial Business had to be gone through, and I understood that that Financial Business would be run through, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North-East Manchester got up and asked the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to explain the opinion of the Department he represented upon this matter, saying that it would be a great pity if an impression got about that the Government were half-hearted in this matter, because we could not withdraw from Uganda without disgrace. The Under Secretary responded to that appeal in a speech lasting about 20 minutes, and said he could assure the right hon. Gentleman that he need have no doubt that, as regarded Uganda, the Government fully recognised the obligation imposed upon them by the urgency of the case. Then he made certain statements which appeared to be quite inconsistent with the views laid down by the Prime Minister, that this was merely a Mission of Inquiry and was not in any sort of way to prejudice the question as to whether they should withdraw from Uganda or not. The Under Secretary 770 said that, apart from any Treaties or spheres of influence, obligations were imposed upon us by the prospects with regard to the future. It was those words they thought they had a right to complain of.
§ SIR E. GREYI said obligation to inquire.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREYes, and there the hon. Gentleman went on to explain that the Slave Trade was rampant in Uganda, although Captain Lugard says it does not exist there——
§ THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir E. GREY,) Northumberland, BerwickI am sure the hon. Gentleman does not wish to misrepresent me, but I am reported in The Times to have said that it is an undoubted fact that the Slave Trade was rampant in Uganda some years ago.
§ MR. LABOUCHEREYes; some-years ago. I think I interrupted the hon. Gentleman's speech in order to point out that Captain Lugard stated that when he went there there was no slave-raiding. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that as Germany and the Congo State strengthened their administration the Slave Trade would revive, and find an outlet in Uganda. That is obviously inconsistent with any idea of leaving the country, for if it were so it would be our bounden duty to remain there and occupy the country in order to prevent its revival. The hon. Gentleman also said that England requires exports for her goods. That is strictly true, no doubt, but what is the gist of the argument; That Uganda is a country that can produce a considerable amount of crops, that those crops would be interchanged for our goods, and consequently that it is our bounden duty, in the interests of the Empire, permanently to retain Uganda. The hon. Gentleman went on further to say that the French Catholics are awaiting a large importation of arms, whereas the Protestants, in consequence of the action of the representatives of the company, are left without arms. In the Mombasa Debate, the Prime Minister said the French Catholics happened to be a powerful body, and between them and the Protestant missionaries there is rivalry, and the Protestants will welcome our interference hoping it will be backed by force of 771 arms. Surely it is beyond the scope of mere inquiry that we are to go to Uganda to deprive the French Catholics of arms or to furnish the Protestants with arms to fight against them. According to the latest reports of the Missionary Society, there are only 300 baptised Protestants in Uganda; they are consequently a mere fraction of the population. I should like to know what Sir Gerald Portal's instructions are with regard to this question of arming The Under Secretary says that the Protestants will say, "As you have taken away our arms you are bound to see that we do not suffer in consequence," and that they will say so properly when it is announced that whatever the result of the inquiry may be, the Government intend to clear out of the country. I had to get up to defend the Prime Minister against what was really an attack by the Under Secretary. Speaking of the Treaty with Mwanga, the Under Secretary pointing to me, said that it was a mistake to suppose that that Treaty had been obtained by force or violence. I interpolated the remark that the Prime Minister had said that it was. Captain Lugard said he obtained the Treaty with the King by threats and compulsion. The wretched Sovereign made every effort to escape from the Treaty. He ran away. He was pursued. His friends were fired at; 300 men, women, and children were killed either by bullets or by drowning. The King objected to the Imperial rule the company imposed on the country. Captain Lugard, in order to induce him to remain subservient, said to him, "If you do not submit to me, I will put you off the Throne and place a Mahomedan in your place." These are the facts. I do not believe the Prime Minister is in favour of annexation, for he has always declared against annexation. My contention is that, by the necessary logic of events, this Mission of Inquiry will place England in such a position that annexation will be almost certain. That is a matter we have already gone into. My present complaint is that after a Division had been taken on the reduction of the Vote, the Under Secretary upon Report, put a perfectly different complexion upon the matter from that put upon it by the Prime Minister. As a friend of mine said to 772 me, "I have heard of a Prime Minister throwing over an Under Secretary of State, but this is the first time he had heard of an Under Secretary throwing over a Prime Minister." In these circumstances I hope the House will get some word of comfort and assurance from the Prime Minister in regard to this matter.
§ THE FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Mr. W. E. GLADSTONE,) MidlothianI am about to take a great liberty with the House, Sir, but I am doing so for the general convenience. What I wished to say now I ought to have said before the Order of the Day was read; but seeing the right hon. Gentleman, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, present, I was desirous of saying it in his presence. Yesterday we had a discussion as to the order of Business, and my right hon. Friend contended that, according to the impression of the Leader of the Opposition, we were under a pledge not to take Second Readings of important Bills, with the exception of the Employers' Liability Bill, at Morning Sittings. I am not able to make any admission to my right hon. Friend in that respect, and I think it undesirable that there should be so much as an impression on either side of the House that any such pledge, if given, was not strictly fulfilled. Without making any admission whatever or receding at all from what I said yesterday, I will endeavour to meet the view of the right hon. Gentleman, and say that we propose, in lieu of the order of Business for to-morrow and Friday, as explained yesterday, to take to-morrow the Second Reading of the Registration Bill, and on Friday morning to take the continuance and conclusion of the Second Reading of the Employers' Liability Bill. It is well to understand that that is within the scope of the arrangement. My hon. Friend below the Gangway has placed me under a great obligation in undertaking to defend me against a dangerous foe who appears to have attacked me during my absence from the House—I mean the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I thank my hon. Friend, and I should like to go a step further and congratulate him on his change of attitude in defending me on the Uganda question. I am not without 773 hope that he will some day go a little further and undertake the defence of my noble Friend, Lord Rosebery, in his policy with regard to Uganda. My hon. Friend has said, as to the measures we are taking—he does not say that we actually have annexation in mind—and I sincerely thank him for that—but he thinks that what we are doing renders annexation almost certain. I feel it my duty to make one remark upon that prediction, and I think my hon. Friend will admit it is a just one. It is quite obvious, in the uncertainties of the ease, that, after full information has been obtained about the state of facts in Uganda, there may be a division of opinion in this House, and that a portion of the House may be favourable to what is called a forward policy, and another portion opposed to it. My hon. Friend pointed out with great force that there were gentlemen strongly opposed to the annexation of Uganda, who maintained that annexation was logically within the scope of our policy. With regard to my hon. Friend's prophecy, I would say that it is a very common thing for gentlemen to make prophecies and thereby to demonstrate their own great wisdom and foresight, without taking into account the effect that those very prophecies may have on the future stages and development of the questions under consideration. I cannot follow my hon. Friend through all the points of his speech, which was a recital, point by point, of what took place in the Debate yesterday. Part of that Debate, which I, unhappily, did not hear, is understood to have been a declaration by the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs with reference to the discussion on the previous day. I wish, in order to safeguard myself, to say that I do not agree with the allegations of the right hon. Gentleman either as to matters of fact, or in his references, to Parliamentary usages.
§ SIR J. FERGUSSON (Manchester, N. E.)It is difficult for me to know to what the right hon. Gentleman takes exception. Perhaps he does not very well understand what I did say.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI take exception to certain allegations which the right hon. Gentleman is reported to have made. But I am not trying to make a case against the right hon. 774 Gentleman. I am only exempting myself from being supposed to participate in his allegations. It has been pointed out by my hon. Friend below the Gangway that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs mentioned, in the speech which he made yesterday, that I had made a statement upon the subject of the original Treaty with Mwanga, which he thought should either be qualified or changed in consequence of the information received since the statement was made. I dare say my hon. Friend, the Under Secretary, may have said something of the kind, but what material bearing has this on the question now before us—the important question of the propriety and justice of the Mission of Sir G. Portal? This first Treaty with Mwanga is a Treaty that has expired, and I do not know how it is related to the present Uganda question. That question, Heaven knows, bristles with points of difficulty, and I am prepared to say, whether the confession be a credit to mo or not, that on not one of those points, so far as my information goes, had we that knowledge at the time which would justify us in entertaining any idea as to the annexation of Uganda. The hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Wyndam) has stated very briefly and very pithily what he thought might be the alternatives of the case. I thought, he said, we should like to know whether your Policy is to get out of Uganda if you can, or remain in Uganda if you ought. That is a very neat statement, and such statements always assist debates. The only criticism I will make upon it is that it is quite possible the same person may with perfect consistency have in his own mind a large responsibility without being in favour of taking active measures. Those two propositions constitute the subject-matter of the inquiry. I will not detain the House more than a moment longer. Here are 11 points, all of which seem to me to be vital to the question, but on none of which have we adequate information. First, I will take the Treaties with Native Chiefs, on which my hon. Friend the Under Secretary is entitled to his own opinion as to whether they were obtained by violence or not, but I am not bound to shut my mind against later information. The second point is the great quarrel that took place between 775 the missionaries and their followers, and which led to much bloodshed. The third point is that of access to the country, which is an enormous question. As to the practicability and cost of making the railway, which the late Government adopted as the basis of its operation, we have not, so far as our knowledge goes, at present seen any cause to view with favour. The next point is the nature and the relation of all these outlying regions round Uganda —relations which have been more or less constitued. Another point is, whether Uganda might not possibly be made a centre of trade. Again, one more point is, how far Uganda is a territory in which white labour can be employed. Then comes the question of the safety of the country, on which at present I am not prepared to make any positive assertion. The ninth point has reference to the revenue and charges of a territory like Uganda. The 10th point is what are, or ought to be, the relations of Uganda to Zanzibar; and the 11th point is, what are, or ought to be, the relations of Uganda to the coast territory, which are separated by a large interval of space. All these 11 points require a great deal of light thrown upon them. My answer to my hon. Friend with respect to the declaration of the Under Secretary is, that I do not regret that he should have availed himself of the opportunity to make that declaration. On the contrary, I recognise that it was part of his duty, and that he spoke with the ability and energy which have already distinguished him and marked him out for an official career. I think it right that he should inquire into these matters himself, having opportunities which perhaps I do not possess; and if he happens to have observed that my statement as to the first Treaty with Mwanga ought, in the light of further information, to be modified, I do not quarrel with that observation, or refuse to examine the grounds for it, but I do not say that it bus the smallest bearing upon the question now before the House, which is whether it is necessary to have any further discussion now on the Mission of Sir Gerald Portal.
MR. J. W. LOWTHER (Cumberland, Penrith)I do not think that it will be convenient to engage this afternoon in a prolonged Debate on the subject of 776 Uganda, seeing that, after all, it will only be a reply to yesterday's Debate. With the domestic quarrels between the Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Northampton, and the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs there is no disposition to interfere on this side of the House. We can afford to look on and smile at these lovers' quarrels, and leave the lovers to fight it out amongst themselves. I am of opinion that it is not at all desirable to raise again and fight out the question as to the particular conditions under which, and the means by which, the first Treaty was arranged between Captain Lugard and Mwanga, for that question is now ancient history. The real point which it appears to me we may now properly discuss is, What is the end and object of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission to Uganda? The Prime Minister has stated again that it is simply for the purpose of inquiry, and the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned 11 points upon which he requires further information, and upon which he is not able to pronounce a full decision without such information.
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI said that they were eleven specimen points.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERI cannot help thinking it is a great pity that, in the Instructions to Sir Gerald Portal, some of these specimen points were not specified. As it is, his instructions are of the vaguest and most general character. Had these specimen points been set out in his instructions, Sir Gerald would have had something to guide him, and the House would have known upon what he was to report. I maintain that they are instructions which would be naturally given, not to a man sent to make inquiries, but to one despatched to take over and settle the country, if that view had not been largely shared by Gentlemen on the Opposition side, and by Members on the other side of the House on Monday, the Government would not have had the large majority of over 300 which they did obtain. As to those eleven specimens upon which the Prime Minister requires fresh information, it seems to me that we have upon the majority of them, already full knowledge derived from various sources. We have reports as to the railway, parts of which are published in the Blue Books. There are maps and plans not published, which I have no doubt are in the posses- 777 sion of the Government. As to the nature of the outlying regions, how long is Sir Gerald Portal to stay in Uganda if he is to report upon that?
§ MR. W. E. GLADSTONEI said the relations constituted with the outlying regions.
MR. J. W. LOWTHERThat does not alter my point. In order that Sir Gerald Portal may be in a position to pronounce an opinion on the point, it will be necessary for him to visit those out-lying regions. Captain Lugard during the year and a half he spent in the country was able to visit some of them; but, as the House knows travelling is very difficult in such a country, and it will take a long time before Sir Gerald Portal will be able to report upon the subject. We have already numerous Reports, amongst others Mr. Stanley's Reports, Captain Lugard's Report, the Reports of many missionaries, and those of the Belgian Société Géographique, which are very full upon the districts in question. Then, as to the possibilities of trade, quite independently of Captain Lugard's, Mr. Stanley's, and the missionaries' Reports, we have knowledge from that most admirable and excellent work of Dr. Felkin, who was two years in Uganda, and made most careful inquiry as to the country, and its capacities for trade. Upon every one of "the specimens" which the Prime Minister mentioned we have in the Books and Papers in the Foreign Office, and the War Office, if we care to search for it, full information. There is one question which the Prime Minister has left entirely out of view, and which is left out of view in the Debate on Monday night, although incidentally referred to by the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Jebb), and that was, What are our Obligations to Uganda under the Brussels Act? Let me briefly call attention to that. We were mainly instrumental in summoning the Conference at Brussels which led to the signature of the Brussels Act. It has been suggested in some quarters that the Act is limited to those parts of Africa where there are European Sovereignties and Protectorates. No such interpretation can be placed on the Articles, which seem as plain as a pike-staff. The first Article is to this effect— 778
The Powers declare that the most effective means of counteracting the slave trade in the interior of Africa are the following.If we were limited to our Sovereignties and Protectorates, I maintain that our signature to the Brussels Act is a sham, a farce, a delusion, and a snare. We were mainly instrumental in convoking the Brussels Conference; we take great credit to ourselves for having signed the Brussels Act, and for having been foremost among the Powers in Africa in attempting to suppress the Slave Trade. If, after that, we are going to say that when we signed the Act we only meant that we should try to suppress the Slave Trade in Zanzibar, where we have a Protectorate, we were deceiving the other Powers who signed the Act. The first Paragraph of Article I. applies distinctly to the Coast, and the others distinctly to the Interior. The first Paragraph deals with the Progressive Organisation of the administration of the Territories placed under the Sovereignty or Protectorate of civilized nations. The second Paragraph recommends the gradual establishment in the interior by the responsible Powers in each Territory of strongly fortified stations in such a way as will make their action felt in an effective way in that Territory. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. I was anxious to speak in the discussion on Monday night, and in the discussion yesterday, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer thought it his duty on the first occasion to move the Closure, and on the second to put pressure on the House to close the Debate. As it fell to my lot in the last Parliament to take the first steps for getting a grant of money for the survey of the Railway in Uganda, it is not unnatural that I should take a deep interest in the question. In conclusion I say that, apart from all other responsibilities, our responsibility under the Brussels' Act is very heavy, and we are doing nothing to fulfil it. Other nations have spent, and are spending, large large sums of money to establish order—the Germans in their sphere, the Portuguese, the French, and the Congo Free State, in theirs, and we are spending absolutely nothing, except, perhaps, £100 or £200 per annum which we pay to Sir Gerald Portal in his capacity of High Commissioner within the sphere of British influence. That is all we are spending 779 to carry out the obligations laid upon us by the Brussels' Act into which we have entered with the general consent of the whole country.
§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Sir W. HARCOURT,) DerbyI hope the hon. Gentleman will not think I was guilty of any discourtesy to him in moving the Closure on Monday night. The House generally accepted the Closure of the Debate. The hon. Gentleman said that we were bound by great obligations under the Brussels' Treaty which was made several years ago.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTWell, who was in Office last year when it came into force, and who was guilty of the neglect which the hon. Gentleman says was committed? What position did we find ourselves in when we came into Power? I understood that it has been said that these African Companies were Agents of the English Government. I do not admit it. But the only reference to this Brussels' Treaty in Lord Salisbury's Despatch was to order the Company, on withdrawing, not to leave any Arms behind. I will not now go into the various points which have been raised. I demur altogether from the view of the late Under Secretary as to the object of Sir Gerald Portal's Mission and as to his statements with respect to the points to which the Prime Minister has recently referred. But I will not enter further into these matters. I do not think there would be any advantage in having a third Uganda Debate. There are on the Paper a number of private Member's Bills, and it was never intended that they should be interfered with by a new Debate on this subject. The Second Reading of the Appropriation Bill has been generally taken as a matter of course. If the House takes that view, I hope it will consider that the discussion has gone far enough, and that private Members will be now allowed their unquestionable right to proceed with their Bills.
§ SIR J. FERGUSSONI only rise to say I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has been quite fair to the late Government in saying that they have done nothing in fulfilment of their pledges under the Brussels' Act. They did ask the House to grant money for making certain Lines of Railway, and that was 780 one of the points which the Brussels Conference insisted upon as essential for striking a blow at the Slave Trade. Now, surely that was a very serious step. We know it is one which did not meet with much approval from the right hon. Gentleman.
§ SIR W. HARCOURTIt was not my statement. It was the statement of the Under Secretary.
§ SIR J. FERGUSSONIt was rather the construction put upon it by the right hon. Gentleman. But do not let us waste time in reproaches. If we have been backward do not you be backward. I, for one, should be glad to see the Government fulfilling the duties we have undertaken and doing what is best for the interests of the country, and for the good of the world generally.
§ MR. R. WALLACE (Edinburgh, E.)remarked that, after the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he did not feel it to be his duty to enter into an exhaustive discussion of an aspect of the matter which had been lost sight of in this discussion. So far the Debate had been confined to the prospective annexation of Uganda. This Appropriation Bill, however, proposed to sanction a Vote of £10,000 to the British East Africa Company for its services in Uganda. This, in his opinion, raised the whole question of our policy in that part of Africa. On the previous day the hon. and gallant Member for Galway made certain criticisms on the action of the Company in regard to the civil war in Uganda, and in reply the Under Secretary of State expressed a tolerably decided view of the matter, and also took occasion, as it seemed to him, to whitewash Captain Lugard and the policy of the Company from the very beginning. He gave what was an erroneous and, no doubt unintentionally, misleading account of the Treaty entered into by Mwanga under circumstances of terrorism and fraud, and he seemed to commit the Government to the Treaties of the Company. He would have been prepared to maintain that, even upon their own mangled and mutilated documents, the Company had acted in a totally lawless manner, and had disregarded the conditions of their Charter, which tied them down to take no action in the way of making Treaties without first submitting the terms for the sanction of the 781 Government at home. The Company's policy was of a lawless, treacherous, dangerous, usurping, violent, and sanguinary character. During the perusal of the documents he was reminded of that story "The Daring Adventures of Captain Kidd on the Spanish Main," as well as another treatise, of which many of them, no doubt, had had painful and early experience, in which the author started with the reflection that all Gaul was divided into three parts. That writer did not relinquish his pen until he had shown how, under the assiduous application of unionist principles on the part of the energetic but bald-headed nobleman of Rome, vexed as bald-headed energy never was before by the unreasonable natives, who persisted in perversely maintaining that all Gaul belonged to them and not to Roman strangers, however energetic and bald-headed they might be, and ultimately how Gaul became consolidated into a "sphere of influence" ready to be merged into an all-absorbing empire that was destined to perish under the weight of its own ill-gotten spoil. This was a warning, if they would take it, to succeeding foolish imitators. Into the evidence which would be necessary to establish that position he was quite prepared to enter at the necessary length and breadth, but, after the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not do so on the present occasion.
§ MR. A. C. MORTON (Peterborough)said he hoped there would be no attempt to suppress further debate. The Government certainly had no right to complain of it being raised that day, for the application of the Closure of Monday prevented many speaking who had wished to do so, and the present Debate was due to the rampant, jingo speech of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the previous night, a speech which the Prime Minister now told them had no bearing on the matter before the House, and which was made at a time when it was known that they could not reply, owing to the appeal which had been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He hoped the time would soon come when no Government of this country would have the right to make Treaties without the previous consent of the House of Commons. They would rely on the pledge of the Prime Minister to take the opinion of the House later on 782 upon this matter; though how this was going to be done he did not know. He did not believe that the late Government had any idea of taking possession of the country when they proposed the railway survey last year. Certainly nothing was said to that effect, and if it had been in their minds they ought to have told the House. It might be useful for them to go in for Jingoism with a view to catching votes. That was the only explanation that could be given of the course of the late Government. He had understood the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to say last night that we were under obligations in regard to this part of Africa, for the reason that somebody had set it out as under our sphere of influence. Well, he (Mr. Morton) entirely objected to anybody setting out a country as under our sphere of influence, and then claiming that it imposed obligations upon us. Then treaty obligations were spoken of, but to his mind Treaties with savage Chiefs were not of much value. They were very often brought about by the aid of Maxim guns, aided not infrequently by the whisky bottle. He hoped the time was coming when no Government of this country would have the right to make Treaties without asking the previous consent of Parliament. He did not wish to detain the House; he should not have troubled it at all had it not been for the jingo speech of a Representative of the Government. With regard to British missionaries, he had as much respect for them as anyone in the country, but he did not believe this was a missionary question at all. All the good missionaries from the time of Jesus Christ downwards had thought it wise to have nothing to do with the Government of a country, especially when that Government was of a bayonet and gunpowder type. In the present instance the missionaries were being backed up by the traders and company promoters with a view to inducing the Government to find money to carry out their wishes. As to slavery, he was as anxious to put it down as anybody in the world; but it was a new thing to find the Tory Party advocating the abolition of slavery as a part of their policy, because up to very recently they had always been in favour of slavery. [Cries of "Never!"] Right hon. Members opposite said "Never!" But the 783 records of the Debates in the House, and the records of the country, would show that the Tory Party were favourable to enslaving not only the people of Africa, but the people of this country also. They always opposed the abolition of slavery in the West Indies, and up to the last moment they had been in favour of establishing a power in the United States whose foundation stone was slavery. It was nonsense for the Tory Party to tell that House that they were opposed to slavery. They were as much in favour of it as ever, though of course they remembered that the people of the country had votes, and that it was necessary to pronounce against slavery. If this had been a question of slavery he should not have begrudged a few thousands or hundreds of thousands of pounds; but it had nothing to do with slavery at all, slavery being dragged in merely for the purpose of furthering the objects of the Company. He should not trouble the House further, because he relied upon the Prime Minister's pledge that nothing beyond inquiry should be done without the previous consent of the House.
§ Question put, and agreed to.