§
Motion made—
That Item C (British East Africa, Grant in Aid), be reduced by £100."—(Sir G. Dilke.)
§ *SIR C. DILKEThe item I wish to call attention to is that for British East Africa, and I will make my remarks as short as I can, on account of the late hour of the night. There was a deputation to the Under Secretary of State not long ago in which a question arose which 736 does not come under this Vote—I mean the question of slavery in Zanzibar. But there is a question which does come under this Vote, and that is the fact that the replies given on Fugitive Slaves were unsatisfactory. This item C makes up the deficiency in the revenue of the British East Africa Protectorate, and it is with regard to the Question asked about the officers who administer the government of that Protectorate of British East Africa that I desire to allude. Now, on the 5th of August last year a challenge was directed and addressed to some of us across the floor 737 of the House in regard to similar items in the amount voted by the late Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He challenged us to produce to the Committee any case in which a British officer has violated the law with regard to slavery as laid down by the Attorney-General. I am glad to see the Attorney-General in his place, and I may say that we have nothing but satisfaction to express with regard to the view of the law stated to this House upon this subject on several occasions which were contained in Foreign Office dispatches addressed to the officers administering the government of British East Africa, and which was resisted very much by them. Now, on the 5th of August last it was admitted, in regard to the difference of opinion between the officers and the Government in reference to this slavery question, what their course should be. It was admitted that they had argued against the law as given by the Attorney-General, and took issue on the fact that they had not power to carry out the views expressed by the Attorney-General in this House, which was the promise given by Her Majesty's Government. Now, I wish to call the attention of the Committee to the case of Mr. Lloyd, of Mombasa, which is the principal part in British East Africa. Now, that was in June previous to that date, and probably without the knowledge of the Government in this House, at the time at which the question was addressed to us. Mr. Lloyd had his way, and he directly violated the law as laid down by the Attorney-General, that is, the law with regard to fugitive slaves. Now, what occurred with regard to Mombasa? Why, Mr. Lloyd actually-sent back to slavery three persons who had been sheltered at a mission station of the United Methodist Free Church. One of these persons was a baptised Christian, and the other two were her father and mother. Now, these three persons were surrendered who had been ten years at the station of the United Methodist Free Church. This case occurred in June last year, and it appears to show on the facts which have been put before us, which have not been contradicted, that it is exactly one of those cases which we were challenged to produce in August last. I do not think, Sir, con- 738 sidering the time which has elapsed since last June, that the Government ought now to be in the position of merely asking for information with regard to this case, from their officers on the spot. Surely, if there is any real intention on the part of the officers to carry out the law, the Government should have been aware of the facts by this time. The Government have been made aware of the facts by the action of the people who complained, and who stated that those three persons were taken from them and restored to slavery, and surely this is a case in which the Government ought to be informed. As I understand it, the officials on the spot have never really recognised and understood the view of the law which was laid down by the Attorney-General in this House. Sir A. Hardinge, who is the principal official on the spot, has explained to the Government his view of the law, and he says that the Indian Penal Code was only made applicable to British East Africa so far as the circumstances permitted; but the Attorney-General's view of the law was never based upon the Indian Penal Code at all, but it was based upon the general law of this country, as applied to British subjects engaged in connection with the slave trade, in words which I will presently give to the House. Sir A. Hardinge's case appears to be that it is practically impossible to take any other course or to abolish the legal status of slavery in British East Africa, which is a Mahomedan country. I should like very briefly to call the attention of the House to the most weighty evidence given on this subject by Sir Bartle Frere, who is a very high authority on Mahomedan countries and on Zanzibar and British East Africa. This subject was inquired into by the Royal Commission on Fugitive Slaves in 1876. And on this point I should like to bring forward the evidence of Sir Bartle Frere. He pointed out, by reference to India, how absolutely safe and easy it was in Mahomedan countries to abolish the legal status of slavery. There were sixty millions of Mahomedans, and not one single slave amongst them was recognised by law. What their own customs might be or what was recognised by themselves was nothing. But the point is that there is no legal enforcing of slave conditions, and there is no recognition of any court of slavery in Mahomedan countries. Now, what did Sir Bartle 739 Frere say in support of that view? He said tliat—
In Cairo, where slavery is the law of the land, and where we have no right whatever to interfere between master and servant, during the whole time that Mr. Rogers was Vice-Consul—and I have no doubt before and since—it was the habit of any slave who was ill-treated to come to the British Consul, and the Consul conferred with the Chief of the police, and, unless there was some very good reason to the contrary, if any sort of ill-treatment was proved, the Chief of Police generally made, out the man's papers for freedom, and the man was free, and in some cases women did the same; and yet, although there was all that facility, I think that between 40 and 50 cases were the whole that occurred during several years. It was well known in Cairo, and it used to be a common thing with a slave if he was discontented, to say, 'I shall go to the English Consul,' but he rarely did.These facts were adduced by Sir Bartle Frere to show that it was perfectly safe, without interfering with domestic customs, to refuse to give up fugitive slaves and to refuse to recognise the legal status of slavery in British East Africa. The opinion given by the Attorney-General was not based upon the Indian Penal Code at all, and my own impression is that it rested upon the Slave Trade Acts of 1834 and upon the Slave Trade Act of 1843. By the Slave Trade Act of 1834 it is provided that—If any person shall remove persons as, or in order to their being dealt with as slaves, the persons so offending shall be subject to a penalty of £100 for each offence, and by section 10 may be felons subject to transportation.The Slave Trade Act of 1843, section 1, brings within the mischief of the other Act "British subjects wheresoever residing or being," and even in "any foreign country." Now, Sir, I cannot think that our officials in British East Africa really understood the law as laid down here or understood its application. In face of the facts I have quoted their language is extraordinary, and I am convinced that the officials in British East Africa, in such a case as the Mombasa case, in restoring these three slaves, are thoroughly within the mischief of these Acts. Now, Sir, I have promised the House to be as brief 740 as it is possible to be in stating this case, and I believe I have succeeded in putting this case clearly to the House. We were challenged to produce a case in which this view of the law had not prevailed, although the officers were known to be hostile to that view. We have produced a case which occurred last year, and I contend the Government are not justified now, after all this time has passed, in telling us that they have no information with regard to the details of the case. I beg to move the reduction of the Vote by £100.
§ *MR. BRODRICKI am sorry to see that the right honourable Baronet has thought it necessary to raise this question again. I have explained before that the difficulty is one only of time and distance in getting the requisite information. Mr. Lloyd, who is the magistrate involved, went up the country, and, although communications have been addressed to Sir Arthur Hardinge, we have not yet been able to obtain the answer, although we have pressed for it more than once. Pending its arrival, it is impossible for me to give the explanation, because I have not got the facts. When the information comes I shall have the greatest possible pleasure in making the House acquainted with it. In reply to a question I stated that it was understood that these particular persons were in distress, and there had been an arrangement by which their master had agreed to take them back, but, of course, we do not know the facts. But as regards the main question, the important point is whether British subjects should or should not assist in restoring slaves to their masters. Now, instructions have been laid down and have been issued that they should not, and it has been laid down that British officials in East Africa, should not take part in restoring people to slavery. That is a point which has been decided, and that is the point in which the Committee are really interested. In the case of Mr. Lloyd, that is really an academic question, and we not only wrote for the information, but we also telegraphed for it, and as soon as it comes I shall be glad to place it before the Committee.
§ MR. BUXTON (Tower Hamlets, Poplar)I quite agree that we cannot discuss the merits of this case which has been referred to until we get the facts. But I think the Foreign Office-has been rather lax in this matter, and their officials on the spot have not done their best to carry out the intention of the House of Commons in regard to it. It has been laid down by the Attorney-General last year that no British officer, and no British subject, ought to take any part or lot in returning these fugitive slaves to their masters. The former Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs also gave his absolute pledge, a pledge which was also repeated by the Leader of the House, that this view laid down by the Attorney-General would be carried out, and I am quite sure that the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and every Member of this House, desires that that pledge should be properly and fully carried out. We find that when the Blue Book was published every possible objection was made by the Foreign Office official on the spot, and every argument was used against carrying out this proposition, because that official said it was impossible to carry it out, or if he wished to do so that there were great difficulties in the way. That does not seem to me a position that an officer of the Government ought to take in regard to this question, because we know quite well that he has unfortunately—and I am not complaining of him individually—taken the line that these matters ought to be much more tardily dealt with. Therefore, we have a very just cause to com plain with regard to this particular case, namely, that it is now eight months since this event took place, and the Government had been left by their officers on the spot entirely ignorant with regard to this matter, which has been carried out by them totally contrary to the law laid down by the Attorney-General, and contrary to the pledge given us by the Government. I am not blaming the present Under Secretary or the Government as such, but I do blame them to this extent, that they do not seem to have made it clear to these officers that the House of Commons is determined that, as far as it possibly can, slavery, and the giving back of fugitive slaves, shall be brought to an end. What the Government ought to do is to give strict instructions to 742 their officers that the law of this country, and the feeling of the House of Commons, shall be respected in regard to this matter, and that such an occurrence as this shall not be allowed to happen again. Therefore, while this is a case in which we cannot discuss the actual merits, I hope it is a case in which the Foreign Office will give more general instructions to their officers to see that such a scandal does not occur again in the future.
§ *MR. BRODRICKI am sure the honourable Gentleman is in error in supposing that there has been any laxity or scandal in this matter. I quite admit that the officers on the spot have had to consider a very serious state of affairs in East Africa, on which this House has already spent two hours' Debate. In this particular instance the officials may have been right or may have been wrong, but we cannot look at the matter without some degree of concern as to the position of affairs to which they have been reduced among a very large population, and amongst which a very sudden change has been made. But as regards the feelings of this House in reference to the instructions given to Sir Arthur Hardinge, and as to whether those instructions have been carried out, except in these one or two instances, everywhere there has been a most absolute faith and the most absolute stringency. I think if honourable Gentlemen would read the reports they would find that there has been no laxity on the part of the Foreign Office. The honourable Member spoke of laxity, but I think that the results which I venture to point out have shown that all the cases of hardship and of cruelty have been swept away to a largo extent. I hope, therefore, that the House will take it from me that there is the fullest determination on the part of the Government to inquire into this matter.
§ MR. BAYLEY (Derbyshire, Chesterfield)The facts of this case, the right honourable Gentleman has told us, he cannot get until he receives the report from Mr. Lloyd, and he is up in the country. But there are other officers on the spot. In reply to the question the right honourable Gentleman said that certain cases in which this was pre- 743 arranged between the slaves and the masters themselves. There is Mr. Craufurd, an official there, whom this case came before on 21st June. Writing to Mr. Howe, who is the missionary there, he says—
There is a judge—a British subject, holding a commission directly from Her Majesty the Queen—sitting in a court-house, over which the British flag is flying; the whole process of the Court is carried on in the name of Her Majesty, the depositions even being taken on paper embossed with the Royal Arms.Clearly, therefore, according to Mr. Craufurd's own admission, this is contrary to the wish of the people themselves. Surely the Foreign Office, from 24th June of last year, should know something of what has been going on there. You could telegraph to-night or any time to that magistrate to know whether this thing is going on still. You don't want to be depending on one servant like Mr. Lloyd, who has perhaps been sent up the country to avoid giving a reply. This is a question upon which we desire to know the real facts, and the Government ought not to give us the reply that "they have heard from inquiries made locally." We don't want to have inquiries made locally, but we want inquiries made from your Government servants there, and we don't want replies from local men. Have you made those inquiries from your own Government servants? Are these facts correctly stated, or are they not? These are questions which the House and the country will very soon want answers upon, and upon which they will require more information than we have just received from the front Bench. Has the Government determined to put down in British territory the legal status of slavery, or has it not? That is a question which will have to be put seriously in this country, and I hope the right honourable Gentleman will not deal with this subject with the levity with which I think he has dealt with it.
§ *MR. BRODRICKI have not dealt with it lightly.
§ MR. BAYLEYWell, I will read this extract to show whether this is not dealing with a serious subject with levity. He says, "from inquiries made locally." Why did he not make the inquiries from the proper official, who was the chief 744 magistrate and the representative of the Government?
*MB. BBODRICKI have made inquiries from Sir Arthur Hardinge, who is responsible. He replied that he had made immediate inquiries, but could not get the information, because one magistrate had gone up country, and he was unable to communicate with him. Evidently what the honourable Member wants is that they should give a verdict first, and make the inquiries afterwards.
§ MB. DALZIEL (Kirkcaldy Burghs)I think this question is one as to the action of the Government with regard to slavery. This is an old question in Committee, which does not appeal very much to the sentiments of honourable Members opposite. Then, Sir, there is the other point as to the conduct of our officer out there with reference to the giving up of these particular slaves. The whole point of this Debate turns upon the suspicion which is entertained with regard to the activity of the Government upon this matter, because we were challenged last year to give a single case where a British officer had misinterpreted the law as laid down by the Attorney-General. Now, how is it that we have to have this inquiry? The right honourable Gentleman replies that the magistrate is up country, but in such a vital matter as this, why has the magistrate not been communicated with? No one seems able to give us an idea officially as to the accuracy of the allegation made. The whole point turns upon the suspicion which is entertained in this matter at the Foreign Office that their representatives are not quite so active in this matter as they might be. The ground upon which I entertain that suspicion myself is the general attitude of Sir Arthur Hardinge. Take every one of his dispatches in which for years every difficulty has been presented in regard to the carrying out of the wishes of the House of Commons. Well, it is, of course, quite within his office to present to the Government the difficulties that arise, but I say that this Gentleman has been resisting the Government in carrying out what they wish to carry out, instead of assisting them, and, for some reason of his own, he has raised every possible difficulty. I think 745 this Debate has been useful in getting an assurance that another telegram will be sent. Let us have a little more activity on the part of the Government, and I think that will meet the difficulty.
§ *MR. JAMES DUCKWORTH (Lancashire, Middleton)I happen to be personally acquainted with Mr. Howe. He was a young man in our Sunday School, and I knew him well. He is in charge of our missionary station, and I have served on our Missionary Committee, and I have had to do with that station at Ribe for a number of years. For a long number of years we have had the greatest difficulty on this matter of slavery in connection with this station, and again and again our missionaries have written to say that they have come into collision with the authorities there, and have had their premises searched by order of the authorities, and have, against
§ their will, had to give up slaves who ran up to the station as a kind of refuge. I have known our missionaries feed those poor people, and for fear that they should be given up, they have given them food and shelter. Therefore, I can testify, from personal knowledge of the communications which have come to us again and again, that the missionaries have been compelled to deliver up slaves who have run into the mission station for refuge in various ways, and on repeated occasions they have come into collision with the authorities for finding them a refuge on the mission station.
§
Question put—
That Item C (British East Africa, Grant in Aid), be reduced by £100."—[Sir Charles Dilke.)
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 55; Noes, 145.—(Division List No. 23.)
747| AYES. | ||
| Allison, Robert Andrew | Holland, W. H. (York, W.R.) | Shaw, Thomas (Hawick B.) |
| Billson, Alfred | Hutton, Alfred E. (Morley) | Sinclair, Capt. J. (Forfarshire) |
| Bryce, Rt. Hon. James | Kearley, Hudson E. | Soames, Arthur Wellesle y |
| Buxton, Sydney Charles | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir J. H. | Souttar, Robinson |
| Caldwell, James | Labouchere, Henry | Stanhope, Hon. Philip J. |
| Causton, Richard Knight | Lambert, George | Strachey, Edward |
| Channing, Francis Allston | Lawson, Sir W. (Cumberland) | Sullivan, Donal (Westmeath) |
| Clark, Dr. G. B. (Caithness-sh. | Logan, John William | Walton, Joseph (Barnsley) |
| Colville, John | Lough, Thomas | Warner, Thomas Courtenay T. |
| Daly, James | Macaleese, Daniel | Wedderburn, Sir William |
| Dalziel, James Henry | M'Arthur, W. (Cornwall) | Whittaker, Thomas Palmer |
| Davies, M.Vaughan-(Cardigan) | M'Dermott, Patrick | Williams, J. Carvell (Notts.) |
| Davitt, Michael | M'Ghee, Richard | Wilson, Fredk. W. (Norfolk) |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | M'Kenna, Reginald | Wilson, J.W.(Worcestersh.N.) |
| Dillon, John | Mendl, Sigismund Ferdinand | Woodhouse,SirJ.T (Huddrsfd.) |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hon. H. John | Morton, E. J. C. (Devonport) | |
| Goddard, Daniel Ford | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | |
| Hayne, Rt. Hon. C. Seale- | Power, Patrick Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES— |
| Hazell, Walter | Provand, A. Dryburgh | Mr. Thomas Bayley and Mr. Duckworth. |
| Hedderwick, T. C. H. | Samuel, J. (Stockton-on-Tees) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Archdale, Edward Mervyn | Butcher, John George | Davenport, W. Bromley- |
| Ashmead-Bartlett, Sir Ellis | Carlile, William Walter | Denny, Colonel |
| Atkinson, Right Hon. John | Cavendish, R. F. (N. Lanes.) | Disraeli, Coningsby Ralph |
| Bagot, Captain J. FitzRoy | Cavendish, V.C.W.(Derbysh.) | Doughty, George |
| Baird, John George Alex. | Cecil, Evelyn (Hertford, East) | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- |
| Balcarres, Lord | Cecil, Lord Hugh (Greenwich) | Douglas-Pennant, Hon. E. S. |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. Manch'r) | Chaloner, Captain R. G. W. | Drage, Geoffrey |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. Gerald (Leeds | Chamberlain, J. Aust. (Worc'r | Duncombe, Hon. Hubert V. |
| Banbury, Frederick George | Chaplin, Right Hon. Henry | Egerton, Hon. A. de Tatton |
| Barnes, Frederic Gorell | Charrington, Spencer | Fardell, Sir T. George |
| Bartley, George C. T. | Chelsea, Viscount | Field, Admiral (Eastbourne) |
| Barton, Dunbar Plunket | Coghill, Douglas Harry | Finch, George H. |
| Beach, Rt.Hn.Sir M.H.(Brstl | Cohen, Benjamin Louis | Finlay, Sir Robert Bannatyne |
| Beckett, Ernest William | Collings, Right Hon. Jesse | Firbank, Joseph Thom s |
| Bethell, Commander | Cornwallis,FiennesStanley W. | Fisher, William Hayes |
| Bill, Charles | Cross, Herbert S. (Bolton) | FitzGerald, Sir R. Penrose- |
| Blundell, Colonel Henry | Curzon, Viscount | Fletcher, Sir Henry |
| Bond, Edward | Dalbiac, Colonel Philip H. | Folkestone, Viscount |
| Brodrick, Rt. Hon. St. John | Dalrymple, Sir Charles | Galloway, William Johnston |
| Godson, Sir Augustus Fred. | Llewelyn, Sir Dillwyn-(Swsea) | Rothschild, Hon. Lionel Walt. |
| Goldsworthy, Major-General | Lockwood, Lt.-Col. A. R. | Russell, Gen. F.S. (Cheltenham |
| Gordon, Hon. John Edward | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (L'pool | Rutherford, John |
| Gorst, Rt. Hn. Sir Jn. Eldon | Lopes, Henry Yarde Buller | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone) |
| Goschen, Rt.Hn.G.J.(St. Grg's | Loyd, Archie Kirkman | Sharpe, William Edward T. |
| Goschen, Geo. T. (Sussex) | Lyttelton, Hon. Alfred | Sidebottom, W. (Derbysh.) |
| Gray, Ernest (West Ham) | Macdona, John Cumming | Smith, Abel H. (Christchurch) |
| Green, Walford D. (Wednsbry | Maclure, Sir John William | Smith, J. Parker (Lanarks.) |
| Gretton, John | Middlemore, John Throgmrtn. | Smith, Hon. W. F. D.(Strand |
| Gull, Sir Cameron | Mildmay, Francis Bingham | Stanley, Lord (Lancs.) |
| Hall, Rt. Hn. Sir Charles | Monckton, Edward Philip | Stock, James Henry |
| Hamilton, Rt. Hon. Lord Geo. | Moon, Edward Robert Pacy | Strutt, Hon. Charles Hedley |
| Hanbury, Rt. Hn. Rbt. Wm. | More, Robt. Jasper (Shropsh. | Sturt, Hon. Humphrey Napier |
| Hare, Thomas Leigh | Morrell, George Herbert | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) |
| Heath, James | Muntz, Philip A. | Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf'd Uni. |
| Henderson, Alexander | Murray, Rt. Hn. A. G. (Bute | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Hermon-Hodge, Rbt. Trotter | Nicol, Donald Ninian | Tollemache, Henry James |
| Hoare, Edw. B. (Hampstead) | Orr-Ewing, Charles Lindsay | Valentia, Viscount |
| Hoare, Samuel (Norwich) | Pease, H. Pike (Darlington) | Ward, Hon. Robt. A. (Crewe) |
| Hozier, Hon. James H. Cecil | Penn, John | Webster, SirR.E.(I. of Wight) |
| Hubbard, Hon. Evelyn | Phillpotts, Captain Arthur | Welby, Lieut.-Colonel A.C.E. |
| Johnston, William (Belfast) | Pollock, Harry Frederick | Williams, Joseph Powell-(Birm. |
| Kenyon-Slaney, Colonel Wm. | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Wortley, Rt.Hon.C.B.(Stuart- |
| King, Sir Henry Seymour | Pryce-Jones, Lt.-Col. Edward | Wyndham, George |
| Knowles, Lees | Purvis, Robert | Wyndham-Quin, Major W. H. |
| Lafone, Alfred | Pym, C. Guy | Young, Commander (Berks, E. |
| Laurie, Lieutenant-General | Rasch, Major Frederic Carne | |
| Lawrence,SirE.Durning-(Corn) | Rentoul, James Alexander | TELLERS FOR THE NOES— |
| Lawrence, Wm. F. (Liverpool) | Richardson,Sir Thos.(Hartlepl. | Sir W. Walrond and Mr. Anstruther. |
| Lawson, John Grant (Yorks) | Ritchie, Rt.Hn.Chas.Thomson | |
| Leigh-Bennett, Henry Currie | Robertson, Herbert (Hackney) |
Resolutions agreed to.
§ Original Question again proposed. Debate arising;
§ And, it being after Midnight, the Chairman left the Chair to make his Report to the House.
§ Resolutions to be reported this day; Committee also report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday.
§ House resumed.