63
ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA).
ained ?—I should have thought not ; supposing
there were a delay, I do not know that there
^uld be any great inconvenience in that. I do
^9^ see the inconvenience ; if it is left in charge
the Sultan’s officer, he would be responsible,
the Sultan would punish him in the event
^is allowing any malpractice.
^,^3. Are there any ports on that coast in
-^ich it would be convenient to treat captured
aves in that way ?—I should have thought
j^ere were several ports where they could be
®|t without much difficulty ; the dhows them-^^ves
do not require an important port, they are
“'“like ships of war.
.1 ^'4. Are you under the impression that
Sultan of Zanzibar and his officers would
® ^villing to be responsible for the ships and
^.^goes ?—The recommendation of the Com-^ttee
was, that an arrangement should be
en--
^ LiAttL 0.11 01 AOlit^V/lllVyiAU LllVl K/\u V
^ted into with the Sultan to do that, and we had
doubt whatever that the late Sultan would
^Ve done it; whether the present Sultan would
^^er into such an arrangement, I do not know.
^75. The coast over which these operations
1 extend, would be a length of 4,000 miles,
^^sides the Red Sea?—I have been told that;
® far as regards the export trade, the captures
are principally made between Kilwa and Brava,
and when they are captured beyond that, they
are captured close to Socotra.
876. It has been stated in evidence before the
Committee, that it would be necessary to intercept
slave dhows on the coast on which they
landed the slaves, as well as the coast from which
the slaves were exported ; in that case it would
be something like 4,000 miles over which the
operations would be extended i—You might say
that, but you would not require to blockade
every portion of that coast of 4,000 miles.
877. It would have to be left to the naval
officer in command of the station to determine
whether having regard to the strength of the
monsoon and the power of Her Majesty’s ships,
it would be advisable to take the dhows into any
particular port ?—Yes, many have been captured
in the neighbourhood of Zanzibar, and they have
been destroyed at once ; where a vessel can
readily be taken into a port we think that it
should be done. There are circumstances in
which it is impossible almost to do that, and then
naturally the vessel would have to be destroyed ;
it would be of course on the responsibility of the
commanding officer.
Mr. H. a
Rotfiety.
24 July
1871.
Sir William Coghlan, called in ; and Examined.
(chairman.] What position have you held
„ ^ich enables you to give the Committee any in-^^'^ation
with reference to the slave trade ?—I
about nine years Political Resident and Comç^^^ant
at Aden, and during that time I was
g^H^yed as agent of the Viceroy of India to
^ Ge the question between the two sons of Syed
the Sultan of Zanzibar, and the Sultan of
'f^scat.
o ^79. You negotiated that treaty which led to
® payment of that subsidy ?—Yes.
. 80. The Indian Government attached con^
importance to the prevention of hostilithat
part of the world ?—Yes ; they were
^ding their ships against each other.
g| Was your attention drawn to the liberated
who were sent to Aden ?—I have myself
®6veral occasions liberated slaves.
82. Under what authority was that ?—I was
Coq appointed the Judge of the Admiralty
^^^83. What was done with the slaves liberated
^j^^den ?—If they had been in any large number
would have been a difficulty ; I found no
lç^*^Glty because the numbers were few. I refj^^d
the men, and let them take their chance as
^ labourers, and the women I apportioned
the respectable families ; that would
work on a large scale.
84. Was thfirp auv rli
Was there any difficulty in finding emfor
the men?—None whatever. In
hqy I sent a number of children to Bomseveral
girls to one of the mission schools
considerable expense incurred
British Government connected with them?
aqy ; I do not remember to have incurred
Have you made a report to the Foreign
to the Indian Government upon the
trade?—Yes; I made a very
0 j j ï'eport upon the subject a long time ago ;
it was as far back as the 1st of November
1860.
887. Have you had no further information
upon the subject since that time ?—No ; I found
that my figures were discredited, and I did not
say anything more about it.
888. That report has never been published ? —
Not to my knowledge.
889. Subsequent to 1860 you say you have
received no fresh information on the subject of
slave trade ?—No, I have had nothing to do with
the slave trade since. In 1863 I was at Aden,
and some representations were made to me by the
merchants at that place, but I have made no report
since 1860.
890. You have no doubt as to the correctness
of what you state in your report?—No; it was
prepared under great advantages. I had very
able assistance in preparing it. I had also the
assistance of General Rigby, who was at that
time the consul at Zanzibar, and I had personal
access to both the Sultans. I was at Muscat,
where I saw Sultan Thowaynee, and discussed
the slave question with him.
891. Mr. P, Wytidham.'] You negotiated the
settlement of the difficulty between Muscat and
Zanzibar ?—Yes.
892. What is your view of the subsidy; do
you regard it as an award to the Sovereign of
Muscat individually?—No; I regard it as a
dynastic arrangement.
893. Do you think we could with propriety
withdraw from our position with respect to that
subsidy ?—I think not. I think the only opportunity
we ever had of withdrawing from it was
missed. That was when the young man Sultan
Salim killed his father ; that would have been a
fair opportunity to have freed Zanzibar from the
subsidy, because the Sultan represented that it
was a hard case that he should pay it to his
nephew, a parricide, who had murdered his (the
Sultan’s) brother.
G 4 894. Supposing
Sir
fV. Coghlan.
