Report from the Select Committee on Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa); together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 832922498

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-79587

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Report from the Select Committee on Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa); together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index

Place of publication:: [London]

Publisher:: [The House of Commons]

Year of publication:: 1871

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XXIV, 242 S.)

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

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 king- to 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 ques- i^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 Secre tary of State for India.” On the 26th of No vember, Sir CharEs Wood again called the atten tion 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 Im- i 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 expendi- pffiicy 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 read ing 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 Im perial 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 sub ject; 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 pur pose of taking more effectual steps for the sup pression 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 appoint ments, 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.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Report from the Select Committee on Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa); together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation