Lords Sitting of 9 May 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Gas Provisional Orders * (81); Land Drainage Provisional Orders * (82).
Second Reading—Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment (74), negatived.
Third Reading—Public Health (Confirmation of Bye-Laws) * (76), and passed.

CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Balfour.)
CRUELTY TO ANIMALS ACTS AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 74.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD BALFOUR, in rising to move that the Bill be now read a second time, said, that its main object was to put an end to the cruel pastime of shooting birds from traps. The circumstances under which it had been brought before the House, and which he should like to recall, were these. Last year a similar Bill was introduced in "another place," and its second reading was carried by 195 to 40. It was late in the Session,

  1815
  when that Bill was brought up to their Lordships' House, and its second reading was put down for a day far on in the month of August. There were not many of their Lordships present when it came on, and after a short discussion, upon a small Division being taken, it was rejected by a majority of 30 to 17. That was hardly a judgment of their Lordships' House which the supporters of the Bill could be expected to regard as final; and, therefore, the Bill had been brought in again, in the sanguine hope—in which he heartily joined—that their Lordships would reverse their decision of last year, and pass the present Bill by a considerable majority. With the view of meeting some of the objections that had been urged to the Bill of last year, he had modified it in some respects; but its essential features were the same as those of the Bill of last year, and its object, briefly described, was to suppress the practice of pigeon-shooting, which, certainly, under no circumstances could be legitimately described as sport. He knew that that character was sometimes claimed for it; but he would like some of its defenders to get up arid state the grounds on which they put forward that claim. He was not going to venture on an attempt to define what was, and what was not, sport; but sport, to be legitimate, ought to provide healthy recreation for the mind and body, and, in some respects, test the strength and ability of men, and, it might be, also, of trained dogs, against the instincts of animals more or less in their native haunts. If that was to be the canon by which to decide what was, and what was not, sport, it would be very difficult for the advocates of pigeon-shooting to bring it within that definition. He did not think he went too far, when he said that pigeon-shooting had its origin, and owed its continuance, to the fact that it was a medium for gambling for bets and stakes subscribed by the competitors. He did not ask their Lordships to condemn betting and gambling. He did not think the Legislature could properly be asked to do that; but something could be done for the purpose of checking, as at present practised, this essentially revolting practice, in which animals were put to death for the main, if not the only, purpose of affording a means for amusement and gambling. He would like those who
  1816
  advocated the practice to face the question whether or not it was frequently attended with serious cruelties? As regarded himself, he had no doubt upon the subject. He divided the cruelties into two classes—firstly, those which were wilful injuries, such as where it had been proved, as it bad in many cases, that birds had been mutilated, or otherwise cruelly injured, by having their bills twisted, their bodies bruised, and their feathers plucked out by the attendants, before they had been put in the trap, for the purpose of giving one competitor an advantage over another; the other class of cruelties was one that, he contended, was almost inseparable from the continuance of the practice—namely, the sufferings which the birds underwent on their way to the place where they were to be shot. It was said in a Paper, which he held in his hand, and which had been extensively circulated amongst their Lordships, that the practice was not attended with cruelty. That Paper purported to give reasons against the second reading of the Bill, and apparently had been distributed by some of its opponents. It said that—
  "Not a single case of cruelty had occurred in connection with pigeon-shooting; and that if it did occur the law, as it stood at present, would be quite able to deal with the offenders."
  He ventured to say that was not the case. He (Lord Balfour) would admit that pigeon-shooting might not be accompanied with cruelty in well-regulated clubs; but the Secretary of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals informed him that that Body had obtained convictions in 25 cases; and he added the significant sentence that many more could be obtained, but for the fact that the officers of the Society could not gain admission to private grounds. By private grounds, he meant public-house grounds and other similar places. When the officers of the Society became known, on their attempting to enter these places, they were warned off, and not allowed to get near enough to see what was going on. To bring the law into operation it was necessary—and very properly necessary—to prove a specific act of cruelty committed by a specific person, on a specific bird, at a specific hour, on a specific day. To get all these facts with sufficient exactness, they must have every facility for proper observation; and the difficulty of securing an entry into

  1817
  these private grounds prevented many prosecutions which would otherwise be instituted. So much for that form of cruelty. There was another, and an analogous, kind to which he wished to call attention, and it referred not only to pigeon-shooting, but also to the shooting of starlings and sparrows out of traps. The existing law was hopelessly insufficient to deal with cases of that kind, inasmuch as it only applied to domestic animals, which those birds were not. Not many days ago, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals prosecuted a man for having cruelly treated pigeons on their way to a shooting ground; but it was only through accidental circumstances that it was discovered that the pigeons were domestic, and that, therefore, the Act applied. But there was another case on the 19th April, in which the same Society applied for a conviction. It was a case of some sparrows. The Society prosecuted a publican and several other persons under the Wild Birds Act. It appeared that there were 12 dozen sparrows packed in boxes on the top of one another. Many of these birds were so much injured by the manner in which they had been packed, that they were unable to fly. Stones were thrown at them, and if they still refused to fly, they were kicked to death. These birds, however, having been recently caught, were not domestic animals, and the Justices refused to give a conviction. That fact, in itself, was sufficient to show that the existing law did not give sufficient power. Before he left that document which had been issued by the opponents of the Bill he would like to make one or two other comments. In the sentence before the one he had referred to, there was a statement that this Bill would also put down partridge-shooting, a statement which most certainly was not correct. Then the document gave, as a reason for the rejection of the Bill by their Lordships, that the pigeons used at shooting clubs were the source of considerable profit to farmers and dealers, and in support of that they gave the price of the pigeons that were used. He (Lord Balfour) was obliged to them for doing so, because he thought it furnished him with a complete answer to one of their arguments. The lowest price, he found, was 16 s. per dozen, the highest, 30 s. That, he thought,
  1818
  disposed of the argument that was often used—namely, that they were interfering with the poor man's sport, for he ventured to say there was no man who could properly be described as ''poor" that could afford to pay from 16 s. to 30 s. a-dozen for targets to shoot at. With regard to the amount of profit gained by those who reared pigeons, these figures could not be held to represent anything like the amount, because pigeons, like other animals, must be fed; and if they were not fed by the owner, they were allowed to travel over the country and feed at other people's expense. Therefore, the figures in. question were no proof of the largeness of the sums made by rearing pigeons. There were other objections to the Bill. Last year it was said that it would be wrong for the Legislature to pass this Bill, because, for the first time, it was making the act of shooting at a bird an offence on account of cruelty, and that it was no more cruelty in shooting at a bird sprung out of a trap than in shooting at one sprung in a turnip-field or a cover. In order to meet this objection, he had made the 2nd clause of the Bill provide that a penalty should be incurred by keeping or using any ground for the purpose of pigeon-shooting; while those who engaged or assisted in such shooting should also be liable to a penalty not exceeding £5. They could not wholly exempt those for whose amusement and edification the whole performance was got up. That, he thought, would be manifestly unjust. The offence which was made punishable was not the shooting at a bird, but the shooting of a bird out of a trap or other contrivance. That was the object of the promoters of the Bill, and he was afraid, if the practice was to be put down, that was the only way to do it. If, however, another and a better one could be suggested, by which the end desired could be attained, he would gladly adopt it. There was this curious feature about the opposition to this measure—that while many noble Lords had told him that they could not support the Bill, on the ground that it partook of the nature of paternal legislation, they always added that they did not wish to be numbered among those who approved pigeon-shooting, which they admitted was a most reprehensible practice. He frankly admitted that the Bill might be open to

  1819
  the charge that it partook of the nature of paternal legislation; and he expected that it would be warmly opposed, on that ground, by the noble Earl on the Cross Benches, who was always most anxious to prevent the Legislature from passing measures that were open to that charge. If, however, Parliament were compelled to choose between paternal legislation and the evils of pigeon-shooting, he would venture to say that he should infinitely prefer the former, for the evils of pigeon-shooting were greater than the evils of paternal legislation. It had also been remarked that the Bill would open the door to the prohibition of shooting and of field sports altogether, and that they might as well make the Bill apply to the shooting of pheasants and partridges, for pigeon-shooting was no more cruel than partridge or pheasant-shooting. There was, however, a marked difference between confining a bird in a trap, for the purpose of shooting at it, and seeking it in a wild state. He did not know whether the admission would help, or would hurt, his chance of passing this measure; but he avowed that, if any kind of shooting or of field sport were so conducted as to outrage public feeling, as pigeon-shooting did, then he believed that such shooting or sport would be sent where he now asked their Lordships to send pigeon-shooting by passing this Bill. He begged to move the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a." — (The Lord Balfour.)
  THE EARL OF REDESDALE (CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES)said, that, as he had done last Session, he should oppose the Bill, on the ground that it came before the House asking for something under false pretences. He denied altogether that his noble Friend (Lord Balfour) had shown, there was necessarily any cruelty in pigeon-shooting. He (the Earl of Redesdale) contended that there was no cruelty in shooting at a bird for the purpose of killing it, and that the noble Lord had failed to show that there was necessarily more cruelty in letting a bird out of a trap and shooting at it than there was in partridge or pheasant-shooting. What was cruelty? The noble Lord had not ventured to determine the question in this matter. Was it shooting at birds with intent to kill? If this was the meaning of the word, then everyone
  1820
  practised it who went into a turnip-field to shoot partridges, or into a cover to shoot pheasants. The noble Lord said the Bill was for the purpose of putting down, pigeon-shooting. Then, why was it not so called? He (the Earl of Redesdale) would tell their Lordships why it was not, and that was because the noble Lord had not the courage to call it so; and, also, because he knew very well that he would be much more likely to get support from their Lordships for the measure by calling it "Cruelty to Animals Acts Amendment Bill." The Bill, however, had nothing whatever to do with cruelty to animals. It was somewhat remarkable that it should have taken some 30 or 40 years to find out that pigeon-shooting was cruelty. If the noble Lord, for the Society he represented, required further powers to detect cruelty if it was perpetrated, let a Bill be introduced for the purpose. Such a measure, however, should be called by its proper name, as he (the Earl of Redesdale) objected altogether to a Bill being called by a name which could not properly belong to it. There was nothing objectionable in a man showing his skill in the use of a gun or any other instrument, and the shooting at a bird with the intent to kill it was necessary to test skill in the use of a fowling-piece as was shooting at a target with a rifle or long-bow There was a class of persons in this country who objected to all kinds of field sports, and who regarded hunting or shooting of any kind as cruelty. He (the Earl of Redesdale), however, called shooting sport, and legitimate sport. He thought there was no ground for the Bill, and, therefore, he moved its rejection.
  Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and add at the end of the Motion ("this day six months").—(The Earl of Redesdale.)
  LORD ABERDAREsaid, that he should give the Bill his best support, on the same ground that he objected to bull-baiting and cock-fighting—because those particular forms of sport tended to brutalize the people. There were thousands of places throughout the country where pigeon and other forms of trap-shooting were carried on amid circumstances of revolting cruelty, as those who had to administer justice well knew. All who had anything to do with the

  1821
  prosecution of these cruelty cases were aware of the difficulties in the way of bringing the offences homo to the offenders. He might instance, as one description of cruelty, the very long periods which some of those birds were confined. When Martin's Act for the Prevention of Cruelty to Horses and Asses was brought forward in 1821, it was met by the objection that, if once this line of legislation were allowed to be commenced, there was no knowing where it would stop; and that, perhaps, measures would be brought forward to prevent cruelty to dogs; and, it was added, amid roars of laughter, perhaps even to cats. He was sure the great mass of the public did not object to sport engaged in for the purpose of exercise, which meant roaming through woods and fields, and required a considerable knowledge of the habits and instincts of animals; but, in the present case, the so-called sport was of an inferior, a poor and contemptible character: it did nothing to develop the qualities of strength and activity in the persons who engaged in it and was, moreover, subject to the very grossest abuses on a large scale. Therefore it was that he said pigeon-shooting had a brutalizing tendency. The sufferings of pigeons were very great, and all the practices resorted to at pigeon matches should be put a stop to. Abuses were inevitably connected with this sport, which was not worth protecting. There were other amusements which were subject to abuse—as, for instance, the theatre and the racecourse; but he should be sorry to see either of those amusements put an end to because there were abuses connected with them, because they had redeeming features which could not be claimed for the so-called sport of pigeon-shooting-. Should the Bill pass this stage, it was his intention in Committee to move an Amendment to extend the operation of the Bill from places specially set aside for pigeon-shooting to places occasionally used for that purpose.
  EARL COWPERsaid, he should oppose the Bill, much against his inclination in many respects; because, in the first place, he thought it might be unfortunate that a Bill which had passed by such a large majority in "another place" should be thrown out by their Lordships; and, in the second, there were people who
  1822
  would say that their Lordships, many of whom were fond of shooting, were afraid of their own arrangements being interfered with. But their Lordships ought to be above such considerations, and to let their votes be guided by considerations of public policy. Like the noble Earl who had moved its rejection (the Earl of Redesdale), he thought there was a great deal of false pretence about the Bill. He maintained that in pigeon-shooting the cruelty at the moment was very little indeed, and not more than that of any other shooting, or any other mode of putting animals to death, and the alleged incidental had not been proved. Speaking for himself, he had given up pigeon-shooting, because he did not like the associations connected with it; but, so far as he could remember, there was less cruelty connected with pigeon-shooting than almost any other kind of sport. On those grounds he must oppose the Bill, because he could not admit that their Lordships had before them sufficient evidence as to the alleged abuses to justify them in passing such a piece of restrictive, exceptional, and highly objectionable legislation as was involved in the present Bill. He thought it his duty, as a Member of that House, to vote straight forwardly against the Bill.
  EARL FORTESCUE, in opposing the Bill, said, he never remembered a more remarkable speech made by an ex-Cabinet Minister—indeed, an ex-Home Secretary—than the one which had just been delivered, carefully informing the roughs of what cruelties they could now perpetrate with impunity. He (Earl Fortescue) objected to the Bill, although he had no sympathy whatever in this so-called sport. It was a matter of opinion, certainly, how far the practice partook of the character of sport; but if this Bill was to pass, he would like to know where this proposed legislation to restrict cruelty to animals was to stop? A good deal had been said in reference to the cruelty of conveying pigeons from the places where they were bred to those where they were to be shot at; but the same noble Lords who made this objection, supported the carriage of animals from foreign countries at the cost of immense suffering to them, in order that they might be killed for food in this country, instead of beieg imported in the shape of dead meat. What that suffering must be might be judged from the fact

  1823
  that in one year over 14,000 had died of the passage, most of thorn thrown overboard, the rest landed dying and useless. He regretted those sufferings, and he equally objected to the recently-revived cruel fashion, now prevalent, of docking horses' tails'; but he was not prepared to give effect by prohibitory legislation to his opinions on those points. There was a risk of too much legislation on questions of that kind. Were they in future to do nothing without appealing to Parliament? He felt jealous of the honour of the British Parliament, and he hoped— though he was afraid that was past praying for—its high character and position would be maintained. The reputation of that Parliament, which, with all its imperfections had been for centuries the envy and admiration of all lovers of liberty abroad, was now being lowered in the eyes of foreign nations both by what was done and what was not done in it. There were important measures which the time of Parliament might be usefully employed upon; but he protested against the time and labour of the Legislature being wasted upon a proposal of this kind. Nero fiddled while Home was burning, and they were legislating for pigeons when affairs at home and abroad were calling urgently for attention.
  LORD WAVENEYsaid, he should support the Motion for the second reading of the Bill, because he considered it was a duty they owed to the lower animals, when killing them, to see that they had at least a fair chance. All birds should be placed upon an equality; but no pigeon let loose from a trap had an equal chance of his life with a partridge put up in a turnip-field, or as birds sought for in the high hills or on the Rocky Mountains.
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY, in opposing the second reading, said, that for some time he had been engaged in the practice of pigeon-shooting: but he had not done so for many years, because he did not think it a sporting operation, and because it was an expensive one. He did not give it up because he considered the sport was cruel. He was not an admirer of the large battues that took place; and he thought if they were to stop the shooting of pigeons from traps, those ought also to be stopped, for there was nothing more cruel in pigeon-shooting than in destroying
  1824
  pheasants, where they were driven huddled up into a corner, and shot by hundreds. Last year, he read that out of six guns, in one week of six days, those six guns had killed 8,358 head of game, which gave an average of 230 to 240 for each gun each day. He should not have mentioned this, did he not think it came very ill from the noble Lord, who, it might surprise their Lordships to hear, was one of this party of sis guns, to come forward and move the second reading of this Bill. The Bill was introduced under false pretences, for no serious attempt had been made to prove that pigeon-shooting was attended with unnecessary cruelty.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he considered he should be wanting in proper regard for the duties of his Office if he did not say one word in support of the Bill, and he could not admit that the measure had come into the House under false pretences. The noble Lord who introduced the Bill (Lord Balfour) did not impute any cruelty to the skilled pigeon-shooter, but he wished to put down a great mass of cruelty connected with the shooting. As the noble Lord had said, he was quite willing to accept any other means of putting down this cruelty, if it could be done; but he (the Archbishop of Canterbury) did not believe that it could be done by any other means. This did not belong to that class of sport which was so dear to Englishmen, but it was one which was passing out of usage— that old class of so-called sport which preyed on the sufferings of confined animals. This was not a case where a man delivered a shot, and the bird's life was taken in a moment. It was that old system of inflicting punishment on confined creatures to which he objected. There could be no doubt about the fact that acts of cruelty were committed. He had been informed by persons living in the neighbourhood of these grounds, that they constantly picked up injured birds, which lived a considerable time, some of them with one eye gouged out, some with beaks twisted across, and otherwise mutilated in a shocking manner, in order to make them fly in a particular direction. These things, of course, were not to be attributed to the shooters, but were done in the interests of the large number of depraved persons who assembled in these places to gamble.

  1825
  It had been suggested by his noble Friend (Earl Fortescue) that such legislation was unworthy of the dignity of that House; but he could not agree that anything was unworthy of their Lordships' dignity which in any way tended to remove one pang of suffering; and if there was any doubt as to the suffering that was caused, it could easily be set at rest by inquiry. But the acts of cruelty, it was urged, were the work of a brutalized mob. No doubt the mob that collected on these occasions was a brutalized one; but he thought they were being helped to be further brutalized by the sanction of such proceedings as these. They were, in fact, a source of terror and annoyance—he did not like the word danger—to the neighbourhood. As regarded them, he would not call them "dangerous classes," for he thought there were very few who could be so described; but he thought none were more dangerous than the utterly unemployed class of loafers who went about all day with a gun in their hand ready to shoot or to pick up birds wherever they fell, totally regardless of boundaries, fences, and all rights of property. He thought it a great argument in favour of the Bill that it met with help from those who maintained true sport. He cordially supported the second reading, and trusted the House would not sanction a system which brutalized the population. If sport ever were to be attacked as sport, it would be because some of its votaries upheld as sport a practice which wholly tended to brutalize so many, as well as to inflict incredible suffering on thousands of innocent creatures.
  On Question, "That ('now') stand part of the Motion?"
  Their Lordships divided: — Contents 48; Not-Contents 78: Majority 30.

  CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Archp.

  Kimberley, E.

  Leven and Melville, E.

  Bedford, D.

  Mount Edgcumbe, E.

  Saint Albans, D.

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Strafford, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Sydney, E.

  Northampton, M.

  Gordon, V. (E. Aberdeen.)

  Belmore, E.

  Camperdown, E.

  Powerscourt, V.

  De La Warr, E.

  Sherbrooke, V.

  Derby, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Bangor, L Bp.

  Granville, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  1826

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Gloucester and Bristol, L. Bp.

  Coleridge, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Rochester, L. Bp.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  St. Albans, L. Bp.

  FitzGerald, L.

  Greville, L.

  Aberdare, L. [Teller.]

  Hatherton, L.

  Balfour of Burley, L. [Teller.]

  Hothfield, L.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Carew, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Robartes, L.

  Clanbrassill, L. (E. Roden.)

  Ross, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Strafford, L. (V. En field.)

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

  Thurlow, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Truro, L.

  Waveney, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Portland, D.

  Chelmsford, L.

  Rutland, D.

  Churston, L.

  Somerset, D.

  Colchester, L.

  Westminster, D.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Dacre, L.

  Abergavenny, M.

  de Clifford, L.

  De L'Isle and Dudley, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Caledon, E.

  de Ros, L.

  Clonmell, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Hopetoun, L. (E. Hopetoun.)

  Hardwicke, E.

  Harewood, E.

  Houghton, L.

  Howe, E.

  Hylton, L.

  Innes, E. (D. Roxburghe.)

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Jersey, E.

  Kintore, L. (E. kintore.)

  Lucan, E.

  Leconfield, L.

  Macclesfield, E.

  Lovat, L.

  Manvers, E.

  Lyveden, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Meldrum, L. (Mr. Huntley.)

  Milltown, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Monson, L.

  Ravensworth, E.

  North, L.

  Redesdale, E.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Penzance, L.

  Stanhope, E.

  Poltimore, L.

  Zetland, E.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Bolingbroke and st. John, V.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Gough, V.

  Sandys, L.

  Hawarden, V.

  Sherborne, L.

  Hood, V.

  Shute, L. (V. Barrington.)

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longfond.)

  Alcester, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Amherst, L. (V. Holmsdale.)

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.) [Teller.]

  Ashfor'd, L. (V. Bury)

  Auckland, L.

  Borthwick, L.

  Stratheden and Campbell, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Walsingham, L.

  Camoys, L,

  Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Westbury, L. [Teller.]

  Resolved in the negative.
  Bill to be read 2a this day six month.

PORTUGAL—THE CONGO TREATY.

  RESOLUTION.
  THE EARL OF BELMORE, in rising to move—
  "That the Petition of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce against the ratification of the Congo Treaty be printed and circulated with the minutes,"
  after remarking that lie must substitute the Birmingham Petition for that from Manchester, which he had named in his Notice, but which could not be found, said, he must acknowledge that his Motion was a somewhat unusual one; but it was one, he believed, justified by the facts of the case. He did not intend to discuss it in any Party spirit, but purely as a commercial question of great importance. A deep interest was taken in the Congo Treaty in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Glasgow, and all the great commercial centres of the Kingdom; and the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs must be aware that considerable objections to the ratification of the Treaty were felt, not merely amongst Members of the Conservative Party, but also amongst those of that Party to which the noble Earl himself belonged. He did not intend, on that occasion, to ask their Lordships to pass a Resolution against the ratification of the Treaty, or to act in any way prematurely in the matter. Such a course would be very inconvenient, because, when this subject had come up last year in the House of Commons, upon a Motion of Mr. Jacob Bright, the Prime Minister had given a pledge that the Treaty should not be ratified until the House of Commons had had an opportunity of considering the matter; and he saw by the report in The Times that that pledge had been renewed as lately as yesterday by Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice, who had said also, that Her Majesty's Government had re-opened their correspondence with Portugal on the subject of the Treaty. But what he did wish was, that the fullest consideration should be given to the matter. He would remind them of a few facts regarding the history of the Congo. The River Congo had been discovered by Portugal, or, at all events, by a Portuguese subject in the year 1491; and Portugal, therefore, claimed the sovereignty over the district. But in 1853 Lord Clarendon, in a despatch of the 26th of November, said
  1828
  it was manifest that the rights of Portugal had long since lapsed; and in 1860 Lord John Russell had used words to the same effect in a despatch to the Portuguese Minister. In 1876, the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby), when Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lord Beaconsfield's Cabinet, had used similar language. Lord Palmerston, moreover, some years before, in writing to Lord Howard de Walden, had stated that it could not be permitted that British vessels which might be seized by Portuguese cruisers in the region, of the Congo River, should be adjudicated on by a Portuguese Prize Court. It was clear, then, that the claims urged by Portugal with regard to the Congo and the adjacent coast had not been acquiesced in by the Government of this country in recent years. [The noble Earl here quoted from the Report of the Manchester Chamber of Commerce in 1883, which alluded to the fact that there was great apprehension of interference with the interests of British trade by Portugal; and from other similar documents.] In November, 1882, a deputation had waited upon Sir Charles W. Dilke on the subject; and a Memorial had been sent to the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) representing the small claim which Portugal had upon that region. The exports and imports from and to this country, although more or less a matter of calculation, were, on good authority, £1,000,000 each way per annum, so that the question was by no means an insignificant one. Last year the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had addressed a letter to the noble Earl representing that the trade from Loando, north of the Congo, to Quinsembo, south of that river, was not carried oil by Portuguese, but by English and Dutch traders, and that that had been the case for some time. There had boon nine Treaties made by this country with the Native Chiefs on the Lower Congo, dating from June, 1854, to March, 1877, which might be reduced to seven, as two of them were merely additional articles to two of the other Treaties. The essence of all those Treaties was absolute Free Trade on payment of a sort of "accustomed duty" to the Chief before the ship began to unload; and in many of them there were stipulations against the Slave Trade and the atrocities which accompanied it. The

  1829
  noble Earl then quoted from a letter which Mr. Jacob Bright had addressed to The Daily News on the 18th of April, in which he said—
  "The present condition of things on the Lower Congo, this region which Portugal has long coveted, and her claim to which England has always stoutly resisted, is well described in a letter from Earl Granville to the Portuguese Minister, dated March 15,1883. 'On this coast many trading factories are established, of which a small minority only are Portuguese. They belong to British, French, German, and Dutch houses. They pay no dues or imposts, making only insignificant payments to Native Chiefs. Their vessels ply without hindrance in the rivers and along the coast. There is no obstacle to the free access of the traders to the interior. Missionaries also, irrespective of creed, are allowed perfect freedom in their work. It would be impossible, then, to agree to the imposition of burdens which do not now exist;… the freedom of trade and navigation of the River Congo should be absolute, involving exemption from all river dues or tolls; equality should be secured to missionaries of all creeds. After this statement will it be believed that Her Majesty's Government have made a Treaty with Portugal by which the contention of Lord Granville that the 'freedom of trade should be absolute' has been abandoned, and the' imposition of burdens which do not now exist' will take place?"
  Alluding to the Slave Trade, Mr. Bright says—
  "To give increased territory to Portugal in the interest of African freedom is a new doctrine in this country. A year has seldom passed by without the British Government rebuking the Portuguese Government for conniving at the Slave Trade. It has been, indeed, said that the Slave Trade is the only trade for which the Portuguese have shown a marked aptitude. Lord Mayo last year described to me his journey in the steamship Angola from Benguela to Lisbon, in company of a cargo of slaves. He said that between Angola and the Island of St. Thomas there is a regular traffic in slaves, and that official forms are made use of in order to conceal its character, and to enable the officers of the Government to reap some portion of the reward. Slaves are brought from the interior to Catumbella—they are called 'Colonials.' The price here is £7 a-head. They are then sent in lighters to the Portuguese steamship at Benguela, thence to Loanda, where official forms are gone through. They are assumed to have engaged themselves for five years' service. They are then shipped in the same steamer to the Island of St. Thomas. They are well treated on board and decently clothed. Price at St. Thomas from £10 to £15; a pretty girl sells for more. They can be re-engaged by the planters at the office of Santa Anna, the capital of the Island, and in this re-engagement they are not consulted. In the ship in which Lord Mayo sailed in February last year there were 82 of these 'Colonials' on board. They die early, and never see their own country again."
  The noble Earl then referred, in some
  1830
  detail, to the last Papers on the subject which had been laid before Parliament, and particularly to the Mozambique tariff which was scheduled to the Treaty now awaiting ratification, and which the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs appeared to consider a liberal one. That tariff imposed duties, however, ranging up to 10 per cent ad valorem. Quoting, again, from Mr. Jacob Bright, he (the Earl of Belmore) showed that the Portuguese Customs officials on the Mozambique coast were extremely unsatisfactory; that, in addition to the Customs duties, British merchants had to pay very heavy trade licences, whilst each of their employés were separately taxed. The result was that all the British merchants but one had been driven away from the Mozambique coast; and that one made a living by carrying on a trade of a peculiar character. It was feared that if the Lower Congo came under the Dominion of Portugal, British subjects would have to pay, in addition to the Customs tariff, Income Tax and Succession Duties such as were now imposed in their adjoining Possessions at Angola; and that the. settlement at Boma, a town near Nokki, which had been fixed on as the western limit, on the southern bank of the river, of Portuguese jurisdiction, would be ruined. Inland, no limits of jurisdiction were fixed by the Treaty. He (the Earl of Belmore) admitted that the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having pointed out that the Governor General of Mozambique had, of his own authority, attempted to increase the duties under the tariff, the Portuguese Government had repudiated the Governor General's action. He also admitted that the noble Earl had come to ail arrangement with the Portuguese Government that there should be no transit dues on goods passing up the river, to the Upper Congo; and, further, that a landing place which had been constructed a few miles lower down the river than Vivi (on the northern bank opposite to Nokki), and where the current was not so strong, for the Belgian station in connection with the Association under the control of the King of the Belgians, should be outside the limit of Portuguese territory. Two questions seemed to suggest themselves arising out of this Treaty. Why had it been concluded at all? And why with Portugal in particular? The noble Earl

  1831
  would probably refer him for an answer to the first question to the Treaty itself, which said that it was to put an end to all difficulties relative to rights of sovereignty; to provide for the complete extinction of the Slave Trade; and to promote commerce and civilization. Well, be it so; but was Portugal the best Power to carry out these objects? We might have taken one of three other courses. We might have either taken the Lower Congo under our own protection; or established a sort of international protectorate; or handed it over to one of the other Powers trading in the district. The noble Earl concluded by moving his Resolution.
  Moved, "That the petition of the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce against the ratification of the Congo Treaty, presented to the House on the 22nd of April last, be printed."—(The Earl of Belmore.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Belmore) has, in point of form, been somewhat irregular in moving that a course should be adopted which is never followed in this House, inasmuch as it is not the practice to print Petitions. He has supported his Motion in a long speech; but I am very reluctant to complain on that account, because it is impossible for him to have been more temperate and more moderate. He has read many extracts; but some of them tell as much on one side of the question as on the other. The noble Earl said that he did not intend to introduce any Party feeling, and I admit that he has most thoroughly carried out that good intention. I do not know whether it is the absence of Party feeling that accounts for the fact that the noble Earl had only one Peer on the seats behind him, increased to two after the conclusion of his speech; but I hope that absence of Party feeling will continue until this matter is finally and satisfactorily settled. With regard to the printing of the Petition, I have already said that it is contrary to the usage of your Lordships' House; and I regret that the less, because, in this case, it is entirely unnecessary, for the Petition is merely the repetition of certain statements and arguments contained in letters and other documents, addressed by the Chamber of Commerce of Manchester to the Foreign Office, and they are included in the Papers on the
  1832
  subject, which are shortly to be presented to your Lordships. I might have been disposed to postpone any discussion on the matter until a time when there are a few more Peers in the House, and when those Papers have been presented and considered, especially as we are now in communication with the Portuguese Government on a very important point— namely, the objection raised by some foreign Governments to the character of the Treaty; but I am glad to have an opportunity of making a few remarks, if even in very general terms, on the nature and objects of this Treaty. The noble Earl referred to the large commerce which was going on with the River Congo, and said—
  "Her Majesty's Government are not aware of that large commerce, and are doing something to destroy it."
  Why, the very object of this Treaty is exactly the reverse of destroying that commerce—it is to retain and to enlarge it. The noble Earl further said the Manchester Chamber of Commerce had declared against the Treaty, saying that it would ruin their trade; but the Cotton Spinners' Association of the same city— a most important institution in itself— say really the reverse, and they add what I believe is perfectly true—namely, that, while commerce is now a monopoly in the hands of a few strong firms of different nationalities, the result of this Treaty will be to throw it open to a much more extended commerce on the part of small traders on the Congo, who will be able to invest their capital with a sense of security now altogether absent. The noble Earl spoke of the necessity of reading extracts from the pamphlets of the Chamber of Commerce, some of which I am bound to say, are of great interest; others having little interest, and not indicating much knowledge of the matter. Much was also made by the noble Earl of the point that there had been a persistent repudiation of the Portuguese claims by different Secretaries of State. I admit that it is true that the Secretaries of State have not, up to this moment, recognized those claims. It happens that I received an appointment in the Foreign Office nearly 50 years ago. I have been connected with the Office four times since then, and may therefore claim to have some acquaintance with its traditions and documents; and from my experience,

  1833
  which I am sure will be backed up by that of the older permanent officials of the Department, and by the noble Earl behind me also, (the Earl of Derby), the real motive of that repudiation was exclusively the fear of encouraging, and not being able to deal with, the Slave Trade on the Congo, which is entirely stopped at this moment. That makes the whole difference between the former and the present state of the case. Her Majesty's Government are aware that different countries and different associations are all competing for the commerce of Africa, and especially in the region of the Congo. We have a state of things which is singularly illustrated by the long extract quoted by the noble Earl from a despatch of the English Consul, in which he describes every sort of outrage as going on—an attack on the Dutch factory, with retaliation and fighting, repudiation of the sovereignty of Portugal altogether in the first instance, and then, under the pressure of circumstances, an appeal to the Portuguese Government to settle matters. If the Portuguese Government had not intervened, and if the English Consul had not also used his influence, matters would have resulted in a very disgraceful state of things. I could give other and similar instances. I cannot conceive these considerations not making it important to have some settled Government. It is all very well for individual merchants or powerful firms to say that we are taking away the freedom of trade; but we think that there is freedom of trade in this Treaty, in the true sense of that term, which does not exclude the imposition of moderate duties. The 1st Article of the Treaty recognizes Portuguese Sovereignty in that portion of the territory to which the noble Earl has referred, and the next five Articles make a more complete and favourable arrangement for the perfect freedom of the navigation and commerce than can be found in any existing Treaty of the class at this time. The noble Earl used two arguments, in the first of which he said—" If you move at all, and if a Treaty were entered into, you ought to secure the object that you have in view." I think that this Treaty does secure our object. The noble Earl's next point was that if we entered into a Treaty at all, it should
  1834
  not be with the Portuguese. There have been innumerable deputations to the Foreign Office upon this subject, and I the greater number of the gentlemen who formed them have admitted that they could not find fault with the Treaty; but their real objection, like that of the noble Earl, was that we ought to have taken the Congo ourselves. But are we really to take possession of every navigable river all over the world and every avenue of commerce, for fear somebody else should 'take possession of it? The Portuguese have claimed this particular territory for nearly 400 years, and there is no reason why their claim should not be perfectly good, although we have hitherto refused to recognize it. Their claims have not been opposed by any other country, and the only reason why they are not now in. occupation is this—that we, acting in a high-handed manner, but one justified by the circumstances of the time with reference to our anti-Slavery opinions, gave them to understand that we would use force to prevent their occupation of the territory. And so matters stand at the present moment. It is rather too late to say that we should not enter into a Treaty with Portugal; for, as a matter of fact, the Government have already done so, and have agreed to negotiate a Treaty. After what has passed, a formal Resolution having been come to in the House of Commons, and no objection raised to it in the House of Lords, it appears to me to be too late to say we will not have this Treaty because it is made with a country like Portugal. We have laid down in the Treaty the strictest rules with respect to the freedom of commerce, bearing in mind the pledges given in Parliament by the Government. The noble Earl fears that the Portuguese will not mind those obligations; but if we have force sufficient to prevent them from doing that which they claim they have a right to, why should we fear that they will not adhere to the Articles of the Treaty to which they themselves willingly consented?
  THE EARL OF BELMORE: Are they to have power to levy any taxes under the Treaty beyond those levied for Customs?
  EARL GRANVILLE: With regard to the territory in question, if the noble Earl looked at the clause he would see

  1835
  that we not only have the advantage of the most favoured nation clause in the Treaty as regards other countries; but there can be no differential duties as between us and the Portuguese. This Treaty does not merely deal with the territory in dispute, which is not a very large one; but it goes beyond that, and deals with the Slave Trade which exists in the East of Africa. With regard to that question, we have obtained, for the first time, that which both the Foreign and Colonial Offices have been striving for for years—I mean a permission to use effectual means to put down the Slave Trade on the Zambesi and on the East Coast. It is also most important that we have secured the most favoured nation clause with respect to the rest of the African Possessions of Portugal. The noble Earl referred to certain evils connected with the labour traffic, and there are, without doubt, evils connected with it. With regard to the labour traffic there, which amounts to slavery, Mr. Johnstone, who has written a most interesting book on the subject, says that, on the Congo, nearly all the firms, with, possibly, the exception of English firms, employ slave labour. The noble Earl knows better than I do what has been done with regard to the labour traffic in the Fiji Islands, and the extreme difficulty there has been in dealing with it. Portugal, France, Germany, and ourselves are all occupied in trying to deal with this important question. With I regard to the slave traffic, we deal with it in a manner I have described; but we do not attempt in this particular Treaty to deal with the labour traffic specifically, and I think there are very good reasons for that course. I put it to your Lordships, if this Treaty does not take effect, what our position will be. I do not mean to say that the noble Earl wishes to fetter the liberty of action of Her Majesty's Government in taking any course that may seem most wise; but the course suggested by him would involve us in the possibility of war. Mr. Jacob Bright is a strong advocate for peace, and I should like to ask whether he would advocate the threatening of Portugal with a war after she has in this Treaty agreed to all the conditions which Her Majesty' s Government thought necessary in order to obtain absolute freedom for commerce and trade, and
  1836
  absolute liberty for the conduct of missionary work, and with regard to the suppression of the Slave Trade, within their African territory.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, he would like to ask the noble Earl when the Papers would be laid on the Table?
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not state absolutely; but he hoped in the course of a few days.
  THE EARL OF BELMOREsaid, after the objection taken to his Motion on the ground of Order, he should ask the permission of the House to withdraw it.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Eleven o'clock.