HL Deb 09 May 1884 vol 287 cc1827-36
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 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 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 Angolafrom 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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 DONOUGHMORE

said, he would like to ask the noble Earl when the Papers would be laid on the Table?

EARL GRANVILLE

said, he could not state absolutely; but he hoped in the course of a few days.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, 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.