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.