§ MR. DAVITT (Mayo, S.)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that a house tax, similar to the hut tax which has caused the present rebellion in Sierra Leone, was imposed for a short time in the previous history of the colony, but was discontinued by the late Sir John Pope Hennessy when appointed governor; whether the abolition of this obnoxious tax has been annually celebrated by the natives on the date thereof, called "Pope Hennessy's Day"; and whether, in view of the pacific results which followed from the previous abolition of the tax referred to, and the state of things now prevailing in the Colony as a consequence of the re-imposition of this hut tax, the Government can see its way to instruct the Governor to take immediate steps to inform the natives that the tax will be discontinued.
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESA hut tax was levied in the settlement of Sierra Leone, but not in the Protectorate for more than 20 years. It was repealed in 1872 in connection with an increase of Customs duties which provided a larger revenue than the tax which was surrendered. I have no information as to the reported celebration of this change in the method of hut taxation. I have already stated that the question of the application of a hut tax to any portion of the Protectorate—and I may now add the whole question of the administration of the Protectorate—will be reconsidered; but I am not prepared, while the natives are still in arms and while my information as to the causes of the rising is necessarily incomplete, to announce a decision which might be represented as an encouragement to violence and a surrender to the promoters of outrage and disorder.
§ MR. DAVITTMay I ask whether, inasmuch as the right honourable Gentleman has admitted that this rebellion was caused by this tax, these unfortunate people are now to be slaughtered in consequence of a blunder committed by the English Government?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!
§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIESPerhaps, Sir, in order that there may be no misunderstanding, I had better answer the question of the honourable Gentleman. It is an unfortunate result of supplemental questions that one has to give an answer without perhaps sufficient consideration, and on the last occasion when the honourable gentleman asked me whether these disturbances were not due to the hut tax, I said I supposed that they were. But I must now say that my information is not sufficiently complete to enable me to confirm that answer, at all events as to the whole of these disturbances. The original outbreak was no doubt due to irritation caused by the hut tax. Whether the recent outbreaks are due to the same cause I am at present unable to say, and I am very sorry to have to state that there have been recently murders of missionaries who were in no way connected with the raising of this tax, and I am afraid that that points rather to a general rising against white rule such as is common sometimes in the early history of the development of colonies in which there were many natives. It points rather to that than to the special cause of the hut tax.
§ MR. DAVITTMay I ask whether the right honourable Gentleman does not consider that it would be a more humane and Christian way of stopping the rebellion to take off the tax?
§ MR. SPEAKEROrder, order!