PORTUGUESE SLAVERY AND THE BRITISH ALLIANCE.
WE sincerely trust that the statement given in the Daily Graphic and other papers last Monday that the Government have renewed our offensive and defen- sive alliance with Portugal is not well founded. We need hardly say that we do not object to its renewal because of any change in the Portuguese system of government. The Portuguese Republic is just as good a, Government with which to make an alliance as the Portuguese Monarchy, and we should be the last people in the world to suggest that republics should be looked at askance by democracies like our own. Our reason for objecting to the renewal of i the alliance is a very different one. An alliance is a virtual guarantee, supported by the whole weight of our naval and military power, that Portugal shall not be disturbed in the possession of her colonies. The alliance says " Hands off 1" to all the world in regard to the African and other possessions of the Republic. That is a very great responsibility, though it is not one from which, we hold, the nation ought to shrink provided it is convinced that the rule of Portugal in her colonies is for the good of mankind, or, to put it in a more restricted sense and one fairer to Portugal, provided that there is no disregard of humanity and good government in those possessions. If, however, such disregard can be shown, then we hold that the responsibility of guaranteeing Portugal in the possession of her colonies ought not to be re-shouldered by this country. There seems little doubt that the change from a monarchical to a republican government did put an end to the alliance, and that it requires renewal, for the alliance pledged the monarchs of each country to help the other against rebels and enemies of the Crown.—It was no doubt for this reason that it was thought necessary by the Portuguese to renew the alliance when Cromwell became Protector.—We say, then, that the alliance should not now be renewed unless our Government is assured that a decent standard of government is maintained in the Portuguese colonies, and that we are doing nothing to bolster up a cruel and inhuman system.
But is it possible to assert that the conditions which exist in the Portuguese colonies make it safe for us and right for us to stand up before the world and say that we will defend Portuguese rule, say, in Angola and Mozambique and the island of San Thome against all corners ? Let those who believe that this is a proper responsibility to accept turn to the letter from Mr. Harris on slavery in San Thome which we publish in another column ; a letter, re- member, not inspired by hearsay, but written after personal observation on the spot. The letter was actually written in the island of San Thome. Mr. Harris, we may say parenthetically in case some of our readers should not know his name, is a missionary of very great experience and a man of cool judgment—too cool, indeed, for the more zealous and extreme humanitarians. Mr. Harris is the last man to be carried off his feet by a wave of prejudice. Yet what does lie tell us ? He tells us that, contrary to the belief which has generally been entertained, the condition of the imported labourers in the cocoa island of San Thome is a, condition of slavery, and is attended with all the horrors that go with predial slavery—imprison- ments, floggings, the separation of husbands and wives, of parents and children, misery, shame, and cruelty. Hitherto it has been almost universally believed—though we are bound to say that we ourselves have never felt satisfied in this respect—that though the workers were obtained on the mainland by force and fraud of the vilest kind, and were dragged in chains from places a thousand miles away in the interior, where they had been raided or kidnapped, they were kindly treated by their so-called employers (who are really their owners) when once landed in the island. Mr. Harris's testimony, however, must alter opinion in this respect, and unless it can be refuted—we do not mean denied, because, of c quickly enough—we shall obliged to conclude that true course, denials will follow slavery does exist in the island, of recruiting on the mainland may, , even though the system for the time at any rate, have been greatly improved, and kidnappings, as Mr. Harris appears to hold, have for the present been abolished. To put the matter specifically, we hold that the British Government ought not to renew the alliance with Portugal until they are satisfied that slavery does not exist in any part of the Portuguese colonies, and that we are not, there- fore, guaranteeing the existence of the greatest evil that the world can show—the enslavement of human beings. That is a crime in regard to which there can be no compromise. Our fight against slavery and the slave trade is the noblest thing in our history, perhaps the noblest thing over done by any nation in its corporate capacity, and it is utterly detestable to think that we should now be falling away from our faith and our example. If it is said that we are prejudging the case- and that slavery does not exist, because the Portuguese Government deny that slavery is tolerated by them, then let us make the alliance subject to there being no slavery in the Portuguese dominions. This might be accomplished by the addition of a clause or proviso in the instruments renewing the alliance, under which we shall be freed from all the obligations contained in the alliance if it can be shown that a condition of slavery, or what is tantamount to slavery, exists in any part of the Portuguese colonies, or, again, if the Portuguese Government are unable to prevent slave- raiding and slave-kidnapping within those dominions. We must not be put off with mere good intentions on the part of the Portuguese Government. If they are too weak to prevent slavery growing up then we cannot guarantee the continuance of their rule.
In what we have written we have assumed that no renewal of the alliance has yet taken place. If, however, we should unfortunately be mistaken, then notice ought at once to be given to put an end to the alliance provided that after inquiry into the facts our Government is not satisfied as regards the conditions•just named. In order to clear up the matter we most sincerely hope that questions will be asked in Parliament, or, if necessary, that fuller light may be thrown upon the whole subject by a motion for an adjournment of the House. There surely must be members of the Liberal Party who hate slavery and who are willing to raise the question, even though the Government may object. We suggest that the matter should be raised. by Liberals, not, of course, because we think there is any less obligation on the part of Unionist members, but because if the matter is taken up by Unionists there is danger of it being said that they are merely acting from party motives and in order to embarrass the Government. If, however, action is taken by Liberals, this objection cannot be raised, while at the same time Unionists will be perfectly free to give support to the protest. The Anti-Slavery Society will, we feel sure, take public action on Mr. Harris's letter, for, as is well known, he is in their service and has their confidence. The prime duty of moving in the matter belongs, indeed, to them, and we feel certain that the sincere and high-minded men who compose that Society, even though they are for the most part members of the Liberal Party, will never allow party considerations to influence their action. in this matter.
Previous page
