HL Deb 21 July 1879 vol 248 cc818-30
LORD SELBORNE

, who had given Notice to call attention to the question of slavery in Cuba, and to move for— Copies of all despatches and papers containing any communications on that subject which have passed between Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Government, and which have not already been laid before Parliament; said: It may be in the recollection of those of your Lordships who take an interest in the subject of Slavery, that, on the 21st of March last, my noble Friend (Earl Granville) asked the noble Marquess the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government were taking any steps with a view to obtain the fulfilment of the assurances which had been given by the Government of Spain as to the total abolition of Slavery in the Spanish Possessions? My noble Friend put no undue pressure upon the Government: he would have been content if he had only learned that something was really being done. But the noble Marquess, after referring to the change which had then lately taken place in the Spanish Ministry, said that it must be remembered that the matter was one entirely of internal regulation, and that, but for the promise which the Spanish Government had volunteered, we should have no right to mention the subject. That answer occasioned both disappointment and surprise—disappointment, because it was very different in its tone from a letter received less than a year before from the Foreign Office by the Anti-Slavery Society, in reply to a Memorial which it had presented; surprise, because it was impossible to reconcile it either with the tenour of the language held by the Predecessors of the present Secretary of State, or with the real facts on which the right of this country to remonstrate with Spain rested. I can only suppose that the noble Marquess had been too much, occupied with the affairs of Turkey and other countries, which are still the strongholds of Slavery on the shores of the Mediterranean, to be able to refresh his memory as to what had previously occurred on this subject. That answer makes it necessary for me to remind your Lordships, that the promises of Spain were not volunteered in such a sense as to make them the sole foundation of our right to remonstrate. We have two Treaties with Spain relating to this question, the one entered into in 1817 and the other in 1835. By the Treaty of 1817, in consideration of a sum of £400,000 then paid by this country, Spain entered into a positive and absolute engagement totally to abolish the Slave Trade throughout her Dominions from the end of the year 1820. By the Treaty of 1835, that engagement was solemnly renewed; the Slave Trade was declared, so far as Spain was concerned, to be wholly abolished and illegal; and each of the contracting States then bound itself to cooperate with the other to suppress it, and Spain entered into a very explicit and positive engagement with us to give absolute freedom to all those negroes who might be taken out of vessels which were found carrying on the trade; to insure to those negroes good treatment in every way; and, likewise, to communicate information to us on the subject. In what manner were those engagements fulfilled? They did not, it is true, bind Spain to abolish within her Dominions the institution of Slavery: but they bound her not to add, by any means resulting from the Slave Trade, to the number of the unhappy beings who were already subject to it. It appears from the Returns made from time to time by the British Consul General and Commissioners in Cuba, and laid before Parliament, that in the 20 years between 1822 and 1842, no fewer than 200,621 slaves were introduced into Cuba by ships sailing from, and returning to, Spanish ports. I have not been able to ascertain the exact numbers for the next 16 years; but, during that interval, instead of the trade diminishing, it largely increased, and in the five years from 1858 to 1862, no fewer than 100,560 were likewise imported into Cuba, against the stipulations of the Treaties. The total number imported during the 42 years from 1820 to 1863 could not have been under 500,000. On the 8th of June, 1860, Lord John Russell, speaking in the House of Commons, said— I believe from 30,000 to 40,000 slaves are annually brought into that Island from Africa, and it is perfectly true that this trade is carried on in contempt and violation of Treaties between this country and Spain."—[3 Hansard, clix. 205.] In a despatch of September 30th, 1860, Consul General Crawford estimated that the total number of slaves in Cuba was then 400,000, the excess of deaths over births being 8 per cent per annum. Those figures substantially justify his conclusion, in a despatch of March 23rd, 1876, that every able-bodied African then in Cuba under 55 years of age must have been imported clandestinely, and was legally entitled to his freedom at once. Every, or almost every, able-bodied negro in Cuba under 55 years of age was, in 1876, a living monument of the breaches of Treaty committed by Spain, and we had a clear Treaty right to remonstrate against the retention in Slavery of nearly the whole slave population of Cuba at that time. With regard to the negroes who had been intercepted by the Spanish cruisers in slave-trading vessels, called, in the language of the country, Emancipados, and whom the Spanish Government was bound by the Treaty of 1835 to restore to perfect freedom, as well as to insure them the best possible treatment, Consul General Crawford, in his Report of August 28th, 1863, said— The Emancipado is the most wretched of human beings, for he is neither more nor less than a Government slave; and he is condemned to drag out a life of hopeless misery, being constantly re-assigned from one master to another at the caprice of the authorities, and being subjected to all the hardest labour and discipline of the slave without any adequate remuneration, and without even the privilege which is accorded to the slave of purchasing his own freedom. The treatment which these poor creatures receive at the hands of their masters is, generally speaking, of the very worst kind. They are cheated out of their wages, and are subjected to every species of punishment. They are sold, or rather they are transferred from one master to another, for a consideration generally amounting to from 170 dollars to 204 dollars; and terrible abuses are committed with the friendless Emancipado, such as reporting him dead, whereas he has been substituted for a defunct slave. Thus, both with respect to the continuance of the Slave Trade, and to the treatment of those who were ostensibly rescued from slavery, the Spanish Go- vernment, for a long course of years, systematically disregarded its direct Treaty engagements. A Convention for better securing the performance of the Treaties was proposed by this country in 1840, and another in 1850; but both were rejected by Spain. These things did not take place without continual remonstrances by the Predecessors in Office of the noble Marquess, who certainly did not take the view that the subject was one which, except by some voluntary concession of the Spanish Government, we were not entitled to mention to them. I will mention a few of the instances which are scattered over the Slave Trade Papers of many years. In 1841, Lord Palmerston urged, the Spanish Government To take steps for restoring to freedom all those negroes who have been introduced into Cuba as slaves in violation of the laws of Spain, and who, therefore, not being the legal property of any man, are ipso facto free by the law of the country itself. In June, 1870, Lord Clarendon sent to Mr. Layard, for communication to the Spanish Government, a Memorial which he had received from the Anti-Slavery Society, with his answer, in which he stated that— It was impossible not to acknowledge that the slaves introduced into Cuba, in violation both of the Spanish laws and of the international obligations of Spain towards this country, were properly entitled to their freedom. And Mr. Layard was then instructed to express a hope that the question would be dealt with in a "complete and satisfactory manner." It was in that year that those promises were made to this country by Spain, which the noble Marquess opposite in March last declared to have been volunteered. While those promises were still recent, the language of my noble Friend behind me, who asked the Question in March last, was very explicit as to the right of this country, founded upon Treaty engagements to be heard upon the subject. In 1871, Mr. Layard wrote that Senor Martos had admitted to him that "pledges had been given to Her Majesty's Government;" to which he had replied, that— Her Majesty's Government, after the assurances given them, would have just grounds for remonstrance if something were not done to prove the intention of the Spanish Government to carry out those measures for the eventual total abolition of Slavery, which they had publicly pledged themselves, not only to Spain, but to Europe and the United States, to adopt. On the 24th of November, 1871, my noble Friend wrote to Mr. Layard— Her Majesty's Government do not feel justified in maintaining any longer the silence and reserve which they have hitherto observed upon a question in which they have a Treaty right to interfere; referring, at that time, more especially to the case of the Emancipados. In December of the same year, he told the Spanish Ambassador that— With us it was not a question of merely making a representation on a matter which we had at heart, but was one, also, of insisting on the execution of positive Treaty engagements. If the noble Marquess opposite had remembered the terms of those communications, when he answered the Question addressed to him on the 21st of March last, he would hardly have replied that it was a matter entirely of internal regulation, and that but for the promises volunteered we should have no right to mention the subject. I wish the House now to consider what has been done, to make reparation for the long-continued breach of Treaty engagements in this matter, and also what steps have been taken to fulfil those promises, which were really not volunteered, but resulted from a frank recognition by the Spanish Government of our right to be heard upon this subject. The facts are these. The Slave Trade went on constantly increasing till about 1862, but afterwards diminished; and within a few years of that time, before the commencement of the Cuban insurrection in 1869, it had come entirely to an end. That, no doubt, was a great gain; but those who had, down to that time, been illegally reduced into servitude, were still deprived of their freedom. During the insurrection, the insurgents proclaimed the total and immediate abolition of Slavery wherever their power extended, and the question became complicated with the difficulties arising out of that insurrection. In 1870 a declaration was made in the Cortes that the Spanish Government had at last determined to put an end to Slavery. General Prim requested the British Minister at Madrid to communicate that declaration to Her Majesty's Government, with an assurance of their sincere intention to carry it into effect. In the same summer a law was proposed by Senor Moret, and passed the Cortes, upon the subject; but it was very far from carrying out the declaration; it only provided for the liberation of slave children born subsequent to the promulgation of the law after they should have undergone a period of forced service, absolutely undistinguishable from slavery, till they were 18 years of age, and very little better till they were 22; and for the emancipation of slaves above 60 years of age. It also declared that the Emancipados should be put into full possession of the rights of freemen; but it left the execution of that provision to local boards. Mr. Layard was, however, requested to communicate assurances that this measure would be followed by others providing for the complete abolition of Slavery. Six years afterwards, Mr. Consul Crawford said that the practical working of that Act would be To maintain slavery, not for 22 years, as some persons suppose, but for an indefinite period. In fact," he continued, "it is the Emancipado system revived on a sweeping scale. The traffic in Emancipados still continues. Now, so far as Cuba is concerned, this is the last step that has been taken. Nothing has been done for Cuba in the nine years since the passing of that most imperfect law. A debate occurred upon the subject in the House of Commons in 1872, and an Address to the Crown was proposed; but as the answer given by the Government of that day justified the expectation that they would lose no favourable opportunity of moving in the matter, a Division was not then taken. Since that time, I am happy to say, one step has been taken by Spain in the right direction, though not in Cuba. The slaves in Porto Rico were emancipated in March, 1873. I mention this with great satisfaction, as it shows that there are statesmen in Spain who are perfectly sincere in their desire to fulfil the promises which have been made. I have every reason to believe that this great step has been successful, and is found to have inflicted no practical injury upon the Colony. The obstacles which existed in Cuba during the time of the insurrection have been removed long enough to entitle us to ask that no more time should be lost in the complete accomplishment, there also, of this great object. It is now considerably more than a year since the insurrection has been suppressed, and nine years since the original assurances were given by General Prim and Senor Moret. I can assure your Lordships that it is from no want of friendly feeling towards Spain that I now bring this question forward; on the contrary, I am fully convinced that those who desire to persuade Her Majesty's Government to bestir themselves in this matter are among the best friends of Spain. There is not one of your Lordships, I am sure, who does not desire that we should be on the best terms with Spain, who has not felt sympathy with her in the manifold troubles and difficulties through which she has passed, who does not rejoice in the happier prospects which seem to be now before her, or who would not be inclined to condone the great forbearance which the British Government has manifested. I have a right to call it forbearance; remembering, as all your Lordships must remember, the very different course taken by this country with Brazil, a nation bound to us, on the subject of Slavery, by obligations not more stringent than those of Spain—remembering, also, what the result of the course so taken with Brazil has been. I cannot, however, and I do not, regret that our attitude towards Spain has been uniformly friendly, forbearing, and considerate. But for the sake of Spain herself, and for the credit of this country, there ought to be some limit to inactivity and silence. The influence of the British Government is very great; it cannot be used in a better cause. Cuba is now in a state of comparative tranquillity; but it is impossible to expect that the present state of things in that Island can long continue undisturbed, if the promises so solemnly given for the complete restoration of its coloured population to that freedom which is really their right should very much longer remain unfulfilled. The true interest of Spain, in Cuba itself, requires the fulfilment of those promises. And not her interest only, but her honour. It is surely for the honour of Spain not to be the last nation to fulfil the great work of emancipation. One by one other countries have put down, first the Slave Trade, and then Slavery—first England, then the United States, then Portugal. Spain is the only civilized nation now left in Europe—for Turkey is essentially an Oriental Power—which has not wiped off from her escutcheon that foul stain. It is now for her, I trust at a time not far distant, to put the finishing stroke to this great work, and to crown, by the emancipation of the negro population in Cuba, this great series of the triumphs of liberty.

Moved, That there be laid before the House— Copies of all despatches and papers containing any communications on that subject which have passed between Her Majesty's Government or Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Government, and which have not already been laid before Parliament."—(The Lord Selborne.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, with respect to the Question of my noble and learned Friend, I do not think there will be any difficulty in laying on the Table the despatches which have passed since the last Papers were presented; and when my noble and learned Friend sees them he will be able to form a more competent judgment than at present as to the position of Her Majesty's Government in regard to this subject. In the course of his speech my noble and learned Friend referred to the action taken by Her Majesty's Government in the case of Brazil. That reference appears to be singularly opportune; because it reminds your Lordships that in dealing with engagements, whatever their character, whatever binding force you may attribute to them, which concern the internal government of a country, it is always necessary to ask yourselves which of two lines of conduct you contemplate pursuing. It is, perhaps, an inconvenience, resulting from our national habit of discussing foreign affairs in the open forum of debate that in regard to questions which we ask ourselves we also inform foreign nations of the answers. But, nevertheless, we shall never come to a clear idea of our policy on such a question as this, unless we draw in our own minds the distinction between those matters which we can push to the ultima ratio, and those other questions where we should employ the moral influence of England, but not think of going beyond it. My noble and learned Friend will forgive me for saying that I do not think it is my business in this place to interpret Treaties. Any interpretation which my noble and learned Friend may give from the Bench opposite he is at liberty to modify if he were to migrate to the Woolsack; but I can hardly repudiate the interpretation of a Treaty given by me in this place, and I might inadvertently make use of some inaccurate word or phrase, which did not express my real meaning, but which might be construed afterwards as binding Her Majesty's Government to a particular interpretation. Therefore, I shall avoid the snare which the noble and learned Lord seems to have laid for me, of speaking too confidently and distinctly of the precise character of the obligations which bind Spain to us in respect of this question of Slavery. Whatever their extent may be, it seems clear that it is by moral influence only that they can be enforced. I ask my noble and learned Friend to place himself in the position of a Spanish statesman before he determines the precise vigour and rapidity which the English Government should use in putting these obligations into action. There is no matter upon which all nations are so sensitive as any interference with their internal government; but if you may distinguish between nations, those which are ruled by popular Assemblies are infinitely more sensitive than those ruled by a despotic Power. There is no action of diplomacy that is so difficult as urging upon a nation governed by a popular Assembly, or in which a popular Assembly bears a large share of the government, any change in its internal laws. The slightest appearance of undue concession on the part of the Ministry of the country is at once seized upon by the Opposition as truckling to the foreigner. In Spain the Opposition has a characteristic which distinguishes it from Oppositions in other countries—they are singularly sensitive of the honour of their country. There is no charge likely to be more fatal to a Government—no charge against which it feels itself bound to provide with greater care—than that of submitting its internal legislation to the requirements, or even to the importunate advice, of any foreign critic or Ally. These considerations must be well borne in mind by anyone who forms an opinion on the action of the Spanish or of the British Government in pressing this matter upon them. I will venture to read to your Lordships an extract from a speech of General Martinez Campos, about a month ago, in which he showed the precise attitude Spain is taking. He said— The Government must see that the scales are equally weighted, must take into account the social problem, must declare at once that it never had the intention of immediately emancipating the slaves. The intention of the Government is to hasten the freedom of every slave; but it was never stated that immediate emancipation was to he declared, that all Cuban slaves were to be at once considered free from all control; for this is neither just nor feasible in the interest of the slaves themselves, for, in order to grant their liberty, some preparation, which does not exist, is necessary. Granting them their freedom is equal to casting them into the fields and into licentiousness. They are very numerous, and we would not go and lose the Island of Cuba by virtue of a decree. Take yourself back in history some 50 years, when Slavery was still in force by law in the English Colonies, and imagine that Trance had then shown some great interest in urging the emancipation of slaves upon the consideration of England—had pressed for the abolition of Slavery on all occasions, and had discussed the motives of England freely in debate—would it not have been the case that the Ministry of the day would have shown great doubt, difficulty, and hesitation in yielding to the demands of foreigners in that respect? And if the Ministry had shown any slackness, would not the Opposition have made it one of the capital charges against them that they had not been sufficiently careful of the national honour? Supposing, again, there was any institution of ours to which foreigners had a conscientious objection—capital punishment, for instance—and were to urge upon us the policy of remitting the penalty in each case—I do not place this quite on the same footing, because there is an absense of Treaty obligations—I am sure noble Lords opposite would be the first to denounce the dishonest and unpatriotic Ministry which modified its internal policy in compliance with the dictates of a foreign Government. I have made a statement with reference to the present intentions of the Spanish Government, and have pointed out that they maintain as strongly and distinctly as ever their intention ultimately to emancipate the slaves. I have shown that—according to their own statement at least—it is merely a question of time, mode, conditions, and precautions; and I can only end by saying that Her Majesty's Government do not yield to my noble Friend in the least degree in their desire to get rid of Slavery. If we do not press the matter as rapidly and as vigorously as you desire, it is from the conscientious belief that we should retard, instead of accelerating, the object we have in view. If you once admit that an object of this kind is to be obtained by moral influence, you must, at the same time, admit that it can be obtained only by paying a careful and most respectful regard to the property, sentiments, and rational feelings of the persons whom you address on the subject. It is only by restraining our natural anxiety to get rid of one of the greatest evils that has ever cursed humanity, and our natural wish to add, if it might be in our time, one more achievement to the many which England has already won on this great field—it is only by restraining ourselves in this respect that we believe we shall bring the matter to a speedy issue, and enable the Spanish Ministry to persuade those whom they are obliged to convince to follow in what we sincerely believe to be their own high-minded and humane instincts upon this great question. I can assure my noble and learned Friend that the matter has engaged the careful attention of the Government; and that, so far as we are concerned, we shall lose no opportunity of exerting such influence as we possess towards attaining the object he has in view.

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he entirely agreed with the noble Marquess that there were judicious and injudicious ways of pressing a subject of importance upon a foreign Government; but it was not right to say that because a country had representative institutions other countries were not to press for a fulfilment of Treaty engagements which that country had made. He repudiated such an idea altogether, so far as England was concerned. He was afraid that both in this country and in Spain the speech of the noble Marquess would not convey the impression of any great desire to abolish Slavery—he had, in fact, made a speech that sounded like a defence, not of our Treaty engagements, but of the Spanish Government. The noble Marquess asked what we should think if foreign Governments made representa- tions to us with regard to capital punishment in this country? But the fallacy in that argument was that on the subject of capital punishment a foreign country would have no Treaty engagements with us. That appeared to him (Earl Granville) to make the whole difference in the matter. The noble Marquess deprecated remonstrances which might excite the feelings of the Spanish people; but the fact was that at this very moment there was a debate going on in the Spanish Chambers, in which the Opposition were pressing the Government to do exactly that which his noble and learned Friend beside him desired to see done. He accepted the assurances of the Foreign Secretary that Her Majesty's Government were in earnest in this matter; and he hoped that the Papers to be produced would show that the Members of the present Administration had done a little more than the speech of the noble Marquess indicated.

THE EARL OF BEACONSFIELD

My Lords, I feel convinced, from long experience now on this question of Slavery and on communications with foreign Powers, that it is not wise to rest too literally upon the terms of a Treaty; but rather that we must begin upon friendly and, comparatively speaking, private representations to foreign Courts. What my noble Friend has said is perfectly true—that there is in every State, and especially where there are free and representative institutions, a great deal of jealousy as to any interference with what are called "domestic institutions." The noble Earl who has just spoken has reminded your Lordships—and I believe there is not the slightest doubt as to the accuracy of his statement—that at this very time the Government of Spain are pressed by the Opposition in favour of the very view which both the Government of England and the noble and learned Lord are anxious to support; but would the Opposition in Spain have been pressing the Government of that country for a suppression of Slavery in Cuba if there had been that systematic pressure from a foreign Government on the Spanish Government? I venture to say that had we taken any extreme step upon the subject with the Government of Spain the Opposition at Madrid would not have advocated, as they do at present, the views which they now hold. I do not mean to say that they are advocating them now with insincerity; but they must have felt that they were not appealing with success to their own Government if they were merely echoing and supporting the claims of any foreign Power on the same question. I feel that the course which the Government in this country have taken at all times—by the noble Lords now in Opposition, and by those sitting at present upon this Bench—has been almost identical on the particular matter before us. There has been, I think, perfect consistency in the conduct which this country has pursued for the suppression of Slavery. It has taken every opportunity of binding foreign Powers by Treaties; but it has never, in entering into those Treaties, contemplated that they were, as a matter of course, to be enforced in the particular manner to which the noble and learned Lord has referred if there were any apparent reluctance on the part of a foreign Power to fulfil its engagements. Her Majesty's Government have trusted as much as they can to moral influence, and they must continue to trust to moral influence in order to gain the desired end. At the same time they are always in favour, if an opportunity is given them, of binding by Treaties foreign Governments to the completion of an object which is not only dear to this country, but which, it must be satisfactory' to feel, is one that interests almost every civilized State.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.