TRADE ON THE WESTERN COAST OF AFRICA.— (Hansard, 15 August 1839)

Viscount Strangford

had to present a petition to their Lordships from certain merchants who had been for some years engaged in carrying on a trade in gum, at the British port of Portendic, on the western coast of Africa, complaining of an interruption to their trade by the French Government. If the Session had not approached so near its close, he should not have contented himself with merely presenting the petition, and saying a few words in its support, but he should have felt it his duty to follow it up by a substantive motion, considering, as he did, the case to be one of the greatest hardship 295 injustice, and oppression, as regarded the individuals concerned, and as involving the great national question whether or not this country had a right under treaties, to trade with that part of the African coast, or whether this country held the right on sufferance, and at the will and pleasure of another power. If this country had that right—and he believed it was unquestioned—he thought this country was bound to show its feeling, as well on account of the importance of the trade itself, as because the establishment of commercial relations with that part of the world, and the interchange of their produce for British manufactures, furnished the best means of introducing- into that country, the blessings of civilization, and of putting an end to the sinful traffic which was there carried on. He felt confident that the extension of those relations in all directions, and their maintenance by all lawful means, would do more to put down the horrors of that traffic than all the attempts which might be made to bring minor and weaker states, for to them the attempts were limited, under the operation of acts of the British Parliament. The case of the petitioners would, he believed, be best and most briefly told in their own words, and he would therefore, with the permission of the House, read that part of the petition. The petitioners stated, that They have been for some years engaged in carrying on a trade in gum at the British port of Poitendic, on the western coast of Africa. That this article is one of great importance to many of the staple manufactures of Great Britain, and that the English trade therein, at the said port of Portendic, has been observed for more than a century with great and increasing jealousy by the French merchants established in the Senegal. That a tribe of Moors, denominated the Trazars, is supposed to exercise considerable influence over the direction of this trade, in the interior of that part of Africa where the gum is principally produced. That the French thought fit to declare war against this tribe in the year 1832; and that under the pretext of carrying on the said war, the Governor of the Senegal caused a report to be circulated, towards the close of the year 1833, that he intended to blockade the coast of Portendic. That your petitioners, astonished at so extraordinary a menace, sought for protection against it from his late Majesty's Government, in consequence of which, the British Ambassador at Paris (Earl Granville) was instructed to inquire whether any such intention existed on the part of the Government of France, when 296 a reply was given that they had no such intention. That, notwithstanding this solemn pledge, the Governor of the Senegal despatched two ships-of-war in July, 1834, to the said British Bay of Portendic, where two English merchant vessels, the Governor Temple, and the Industry, chartered by two of your petitioners, were then engaged in carrying on the gum trade with the Moors; that these two vessels were ordered by the French commander to quit the bay, without taking in the cargoes of gum prepared for them on the shore; that the English captains refused to obey this order, whereupon one of the French ships anchored close to the coast, and commenced tiring upon the Moors with grape and round shot; that the English flag was placed upon the gum collected on the shore intended for embarkation; that the flag was fired upon by the French; that the two merchant vessels were captured, taken to the Senegal, and not restored until much of the benefit of the voyage was lost to the charterers; and that after up-braiding the two supercargoes in the most insolent language, the said commander ordered them on board his ship, where he detained them for several days as prisoners. That an official proclamation having been previously issued, the said British coast of Portendic, was actually blockaded by the French on the 15th of February, 1835, and an adequate force stationed in the bay to maintain the said blockade, which was continued without intermission for more than six months. That the Eliza, belonging to one of your petitioners, which had arrived at Portendic a fortnight before the commencement of the blockade, and had landed and disposed of part of her outward cargo, and was prepared to ship from the shore the gum bargained for in exchange, was violently boarded, taken possession of, and conveyed out of the harbour by the French marine, leaving the gum on the beach; and that subsequently several other vessels belonging to your petitioners, which were proceeding to that place with cargoes of dry goods, in order to procure gum in exchange, were driven away by the blockading force. That the practical result of these proceedings has been, in the first place, to inflict actual losses on your petitioners to the amount of 100,000l.; and in the second place, to cause in the intercourse between the English and the Moorish dealers in gum, a derangement which has not been since found susceptible of any permanent remedy, and that the trade may be said to have passed from your petitioners almost wholly into French hands. That your petitioners lost no time in preferring claims against the Government of France for indemnity for the heavy losses which they have sustained by reason of the outrages herein stated; and that her Majesty's Government, and the law officers of the Crown, having taken the said claims into consideration, have found them, after the most minute examination, to be valid and just in every respect. That the claims of 297 your petitioners for redress, having been forwarded by her Majesty's principal Secretary of State to the Government of France, such redress has been refused by the French upon various pretexts, all of which have been pronounced unsatisfactory by the law officers of the Crown. That in answer to the repeated applications made by your petitioners to the said Secretary of State, requesting that he would obtain from France the indemnity to which he admits they are entitled, his Lordship has stated that he has done and is doing everything in his power in order to obtain such redress for your petitioners. That nevertheless, year after year passes over without such redress, or even any promise of it, being procured from France, and that thus the losses inflicted upon your petitioners in the years 1834 and 1835 have been very seriously aggravated, not to mention the further injuries which they have since sustained by the almost total termination of their trade at Portendic. That, under these circumstances, your petitioners appeal to your Lordships for protection, and trust that you will take such steps as may seem most meet, in order to procure for your petitioners indemnity for past injuries, as well as security for their future trade. That your petitioners are far from soliciting the adoption of any measures which might affect the amicable relations now so happily subsisting between England and France; but at the same time, they humbly conceive that the treatment which they have received from the authorities of France, is such as cannot be tolerated without compromising the honour of her Majesty's Crown, and exposing the rights of her subjects to frequent violation in every quarter of the globe. The various statements contained in this petition had been brought under the consideration of another assembly last year, and in the early part of the present Session by the right hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets. That right hon. Member founded upon them a motion for the production of papers, which motion, however, was withdrawn on the assurance given by the noble Viscount who was at the head of Foreign Affairs, that the Government of this country was at that time negotiating with France on the subject of these transactions, and that the production of the papers moved for, might be prejudicial to that negotiation. The noble Viscount, at the same time, unequivocally admitted all the facts contained in this, or rather a similar petition—he admitted the undoubted right of British subjects to trade on the western coast of Africa—he admitted the violent interruptions which had been given to that trade by the naval forces of France—the 298 insult given by firing at the British flag—the con fiscal ion of property covered by that flag—the capture of British vessels, and the imprisonment of British subjects. The unjustifiable character of the whole of the transactions from first to last, was recorded by the solemn opinions of the law officers of the Crown on the case itself, and the right of the parties aggrieved to claim compensation and redress; all these facts had been admitted by the noble Viscount at the head of the Foreign Department, who stated further, that so convinced was he of the correctness of the statement, and the importance of the matter to the country at large, that he was then using his exertions to bring the French Government to a sense of what was due, not to this country alone, but on the principle of self-respect as due to France herself. He was sorry to say that these efforts appeared to have been totally without success. For five years these unfortunate gentlemen, the petitioners, had to complain of grievous injuries inflicted upon them by acts of an ally of their sovereign, and for five years this country had lost the advantage of a trade which furnished an article indispensable to her manufactures, which trade, by force of arms, had been monopolized and usurped by France, upon whom England had now to depend for the supply of an article she could not do without, and which she was compelled to take from the French on their own terms, and at their own price. This, however, was a narrow and paltry view of the question which involved the national honour and national rights. He hoped he should not witness any interruption of the good understanding which existed between France and England, on which depended mainly the happiness of the civilized world; but he was not anxious to purchase that good understanding at the expense of national character or national honour. He hoped that her Majesty's Government would use that earnest and serious tone is this matter, which was never misunderstood by the party in the wrong, when perseveringly employed by those in the right. He assured their Lordships that he was not influenced by any party feeling in taking upon himself to present this petition; in fact, it was a case into which party feeling could not enter. It had been twice brought before the other House by one of the most strenuous supporters of her 299 Majesty's Government, the learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, and he was satisfied that the terms of condemnation; employed by that learned person, were not too strong. He repeated, that he earnestly hoped the noble Viscount would take the subject into his serious consideration. The noble Viscount might depend upon it, that the great commercial community of this country would not suffer the matter to stand as it did; unless some decisive step was taken, they would not be satisfied.