I
ON SLAVE trade (EAST COAST OF ÁFRÍCá).
17
Gütei'taiiis ?—I think the head of my department
Y^s as sincere a desire as any man in the kingto
suppress the East African slave trade;
yt in the face of continued rej)resentations,
receiving from the government
^ . -^Rdia, he has considered that it would be a
^^Misappropriation of the Indian revenues to devote
Miiouey towards that j)urpose. In their view it is
fMot a question in which the people of India are
Mil any way concerned, and therefore they have
^niisidered they could not conscientiously and
onourably pass a vote towards that purpose ;
. Y y consider it to be a matter entirely of Imperial
Interest. I may repeat that this is a very old quesi^H-
It was brought up in Sir Charles Wood’s
Rile. The India Office in his time, continually
I’^pi’esented to the Home Government, that the
^^.^hPression of the slave trade was not a matter
y lidian interest, and that the expenses of the
^^iizibar agency should be paid by the Home
1 ^y®i’iiment. I have here a letter dated as far
ci 1860, in which Sir Charles Wood says,
^ Every important communication from Zanzibar,
iGlated to matters especially in connection with
ihe slave trade, more immediately within the
Cognisance and under the control of the Secretary
of State for Foreign Affairs, than of the Secretary
of State for India.” On the 26th of November,
Sir CharEs Wood again called the attention
of Lord Russell to the subject, and on the
, M December 1860, the Foreign Office replied
^ at they “ concurred in the views of the Secre-^ly
of State for India, as to the propriety of the
consulate at Zanzibar being replaced on the same
ooting as that in which it was placed in the time
9 Colonel Rigby’s predecessor, who corresponded
/j^ctly with the Secretary of State for Foreign
Y^^ii’s, in all matters in which it was necessary
. lat this office should be informed, and receive
^^.'’^Y^ctions on such matters from the Secretary
^ State for Foreign Affairs and Sir Charles
ood sent out instructions accordingly. After
lat we again tried to make some impression
Imperial Exchequer, pointing out that
considered that as the Foreign Office agreed
Y^Muion with us, that the matter was one of Imi
erial interest, and as they thought that instruc-^Pculd
go from the Foreign Office on all
j- nv e trade matters, they ought to pay part of
ith regard to the recent refusal on the
cf the Treasury, to allow part of the ex-Hnses
to be borne by the Imperial Treasury, do
^'CRiember on what grounds they put that
har^^^^ ^ ^ state that the India Office
s not had direct communication with the Lords
Treasury upon the subject,
M hat our information has come through the
^^leign Office ; the reason that the Treasury
ves IS, that the policy suggested does not
addition to the Imperial expendipffiicy
suggested being the putting a
^ ^Dve trade on the east coast of Africa,
therefore the views of the Treasury, I sup:
‘ .“V “ g»""« not worth the candle!
is f .1°" nn^^orstand by that, that the Treasury
is perfetly aware that a small expenditure would
he sufficient, but that it declines in any way to
?- jt: TrS:
0.116 ^^"ch had been most elaborately
and exhaustively considered by those gentlemen.
This Report was laid before the Treasury and
before Parliament; but the Treasury after reading
the recommendations of that Committee,
supported by the Foreign Office and the India
Office, did not think that there was anything
recommended by that Committee of sufficient
importance to warrant their paying 1,500 /. a
year towards it.
227. Fifteen hundred pounds was all that was
required?—Fifteen hundred pounds by the Imperial
Exchequer, against 1,5001. to be paid by
the Indian Exchequer for the expenses of the
Zanzibar agency and consulate.
228. W hat is the date of the despatch to which
you just referred, containing the refusal of the
Treasury ?—The 2nd of June 1871 ; the Foreign
Office felt so strongly upon the subject that they
referred the matter back again to the Treasury,
forwarding further letters from us on the subject;
but still the Imperial Exchequer, would
not pay anything for the suppression of the slave
trade; and this letter of the 2nd June 1871,
to which I am referring, is the final answer of the
Treasury.
^ 229. What was the date of the Report of that
Slave Trade Committee?—January 24th, 1870;
so that nearly 18 months elapsed before the final
decision of the Treasury.
230. Had that small amount been granted,
would the arrangement have been carried out
immediately ?—It would as soon as we could
have sent out instructions ; W'C should have had
to appoint one or twm more vice-consuls ; it was
agreed to increase the establishment for the purpose
of taking more effectual steps for the suppression
of the slave trade. We made out what
would be the cost of those new appointments,
and we added that to the cost of the old appointments,
and we found that the whole cost would
be about 3,018 /., and therefore, the share of each
Government would be 1,519 L
231. Both Dr. Kirk and the Admiral on the
station, state that the slave traffic is now being
carried on with increased vigour; that, I suppose,
is owing to that loss of time of 18 months?—I
have no doubt it is in a very great measure
owing to the suspension of all active measures
on our part. I was asked yesterday, by the
Duke of Argyll, with reference to a letter from
Admiral Cockburn, which Mr. Vivian has just
read, to state whether the Indian Government had
either thrown impediments in the Avay, or had
discouraged the proceedings for the suppression
of the slave trade, and I said I should not be
at all surprised if that Avere the case ; at all
events, the Avhole thing is in abeyance OAving to
nothing having been decided. But I daresay
that the increase of the slave-trade has not been
occasioned solely by that, but that it has been
partly occasioned by the accession of Syed
Burgash. Syed Mejid was faAourable to the
sujDpression of the slave trade so long as he got
a quid pro quo, but on his death, his brother,
Syed Burgash, became the ruler of Zanzibar,
and he is a man of different temper and character,
and not so inclined to further the views of the
British Government ; but upon that subject Mr.
Churchill Avill be able to give better information
than I can.
232. You think Ave have lost, by this delay, a
very favourable opportunity of coming to a treaty
arrangement by Avhich the slave trade might have
been stopped ?—I must give a qualified ansAver
C to
Sir
. W. Kaye.
13 July
1871.
