ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA).
59
Pî'oper way to deal with this question will he to
^Glease Zanzibar from paying this subsidy, on the
§ï‘ound that we are going to insist upon the ces-^^tion
of all sea slave trading by Zanzibar, and
that since this insistence on our part will diminish
me revenue of Zanzibar, the grounds of our
^^jginal arbitration, namely, the greater wealth
p Zanzibar, as compared with Muscat, will no
longer exist. With respect to Muscat, I think
Y^t as we guaranteed this annual payment to
state by Zanzibar solely in order to stop a
Maritime war which would have disturbed our
Commerce, we should ourselves pay the cost of
ÿr withdrawal from that guarantee, but as Saed
f oorkee knows perfectly well that there is much
^cnbt as to whether our award was between
Persons or between states, and whether it has
^ct already legally ceased, I think it would be
S^ite fair to deal with him on the footing of that
p^bt, and to agree with him to pay him during
cis reign, say 5,000 1. a year, and that we should
^ct be bound in any way to his successor.
781. Mr. Shaw Lefevre.~\ During the time you
I' ere otf the coast were there other cruisers be-^Hging
to other powers there ? — There were
French men-of-war, but they took no part in
^^ppressing the slave trade.
782. Does the French Government permanently
keep cruisers off that coast?—The French
government have settlements there, and they
^eep their ships there to protect those settlements
and to push their commerce.
78,3. If the French cruisers co-operated with
me English cruisers in endeavouring to prevent
slave trade, do you think it would tend
^ery much to facilitate its suppression ?—It
^^onld be like all joint operations, liable to dis-^^fbance,
though of course it would be well to
§^in their goodwill.
784. Mr. P. Wyndham.'] Do you think the
^eaaum of Muscat would have reason to com-P\ain,
on the score of equity, if the subsidy were
'Withdrawn ; might he not say that he could have
Enforced it by force of arms if we had not
?^%inally interfered and made this settlement
between him and the Sultan of Zanzibar ?—The
Present Imaum of Muscat has only been on the
mrone a few months ; our policy towards him
been one of the most hesitating and uncertain
nature. One of the first duties I was called
on to perform in India was to go to Muscat and
pj'event the present sovereign, viz., Toorkee, from
taking possession of Muscat. I took him over
with me to Bombay, having signed, in conjunction
with the Political Agent, a treaty, granting
him 1,2001, a year out of the Zanzibar subsidy,
so long as he chose to remain in India. I became,
during the cruise to Bombay, great friends
with him, and I think he is perfectly aware that
there are two opinions about that subsidy ; that
some think the guarantee was a guarantee only
as regards the two first occupants of the two
thrones, when the kingdom was divided, while
others think that it is to continue, but I do not
suppose that Toorkee has any idea that the
guarantee will go on in perpetuity. There have
been on the throne, since the guarantee was
entered into, two sovereigns, besides the one
there at that time ; Toorkee is the third in succession
to Syed Thowaynee, who was the man
on the throne when we entered into the guarantee.
785. Was it in your view in the nature of a
guarantee to him personally, or to the throne he
occupied ?—That is a question which is disputed;
I have never myself seen the papers.
786. Was it a guarantee of the Indian Government,
or of the Imperial Government?—I am
almost sure it was by the Indian Government.
I think it was the Governor General who guaranteed
it.
787. Chairman.~\ Are you aware whetlier any
large number of slaves are held by English subjects?—In
the Island of Mohilla is a sugar
planting estate, owned by an Englishman, who
was for a long time our consul. I think that
rather than give up his slaves he gave uji his
consulate. I know of no other case.
788. Mr. Crum-EimngWhere is Captain
Fraser, is he in Zanzibar?—Captain Fraser was
at Zanzibar at the time I was there. I think I
have heard that he has since come home ; I am
not sure.
789. He had a considerable number of slaves,
I think ?—He had at one time a large number of
slaves ; but by some arrangement with the Sultan,
I believe, their name was changed; they were
no longer called slaves.
Mr. H. C. Bothery, called in; and Examined.
rj, 790. Chairman.'] You are legal adviser to the
■^î'easury in all matters relating to the slave trade?
'^Yes.
0.791. How long have you filled that office?—
^^ce the beginning of 1860.
792. I suppose, in the course of that time your
^l^ention has been a good deal directed to the
® 9,ve trade on the East Coast of Africa ?—Since
slave trade on the East Coast of Africa has
brouo-ht to our notice by the capture of
"""BWsthe^e.
793. About when was it first brought to your
*^1106 ?—I should think about the year 1864.
7 94. How have the present Admiralty Courts
Zanzibar and Aden worked ?—I think that
establishment of a Vice Admiralty Court at
^nzibar has been attended with very great ad-<95.
When was that established ?—It was
0.116.
established by Order in Council bearing date
9th August 1866.
796. Was that in consequence of there being
no Court within a great distance of Zanzibar to
which dhows could be taken for condemnation ?
—Yes; it was considered to be a great injustice
to the Arabs that the condemnation could only
take place at very distant places, as the Cape of
Good Hope, Mauritius, or Bombay ; and, in consequence,
a Vice Admiralty Court was first established
at Aden ; but even Aden was found to
be too far, and accordingly the Order in Council
of the 9th August 1866 was passed, establishing
a Vice Admiralty Court at Zanzibar.
797. Do you think there is any necessity for
any additional Courts now?—No; but I think
it very desirable that the Court at Zanzibar
should be kept up.
798. And that at Aden too ?—Yes.
799. Has your attention been called at all to
H 2 the
Sir
G. Heath,
K.C.B.
24 July
1871.
Mr. H. C.
Rothery.
