No. 1.

SIR L. MALLET to LORD TENTERDEN.-(Received

MY LORD,

March 10.)

India Office, March 9, 1874. I AM directed by the Marquis of Salisbury to transmit to you, for the information of the Earl of Derby, the accompanying letter and inclosures recently received from the Government of India, relative to the reception, on board Her Majesty's ships of war, and, incidentally, on British vessels generally, of fugitive slaves; and I am to request that, in laying this correspondence before his Lordship, you will invite his attention to the desire expressed by the Government of India to be furnished with the instructions of Her Majesty's Government on the important questions of international law which it involves, and suggest to him whether it might not be expedient to obtain the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown as to the reply to be given to the reference of the Viceroy in Council. I am, &c.

Inclosure 1 in No. 1.

LOUIS MALLET.

The GOVERNOR-GENERAL of INDIA in COUNCIL to the DUKE OF ARGYLL.

MY LORD DUKE,

Fort William, January 9, 1874. WE have the honour to inclose, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, correspondence relative to the reception of runaway slaves on board of British vessels.

2. Our letter, dated 7th January 1874, to the Resident in the Persian Gulf, contains the provisional instructions which we have issued on the subject, together with the reasons on which they are based; but as the question involves important considerations of international law, we refer the correspondence for the final orders of Her Majesty's Government.

I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith copies of letters from Major Grant, 1st Assistant Resident, and Captain Guthrie, commanding Her Majesty's despatch vessel "May Frere," B.M., on the subject of a runaway slave who took refuge on board the "May Frere."

2. It has appeared to me that Major Grant was right not to surrender the slave who had gained the "May Frere's " deck. I have informed him accordingly, adding that Commanders of Government vessels should be as far as possible dissuaded from receiving domestic slaves on board their vessels.

3. In a letter, dated 17th July 1871, Colonel Pelly sought instructions from the Government of Bombay for his guidance in such cases. In their reply, dated 29th November 1871, the Government of Bombay quoted the opinion of the Honourable the Advocate-General to the following effect:-"The commander of a British ship of war is not bound to receive fugitive slaves on board his “ vessel; yet if he does receive them they become free. "And the commander of a British man-of-war would not

in Commanders of vessels-of-war. Nowhere would these be more serious than on the Pearl Banks, where the diving is carried on almost entirely by domestic slaves. An Arab owner may, for example, hire the services of a slave for the season for, say, 100 dollars. If the slave should find an opportunity to run off to a British vessel, one can easily understand the dismay of the master and the general feeling of consternation and disgust that would be caused by a frequent recurrence of such incidents. We should no longer be looked on as the friendly protectors of the maritime Arabs.

5. It seems to me highly advisable that every means should be taken to induce commanders of vessels, whenever practicable, to refuse to receive runaways on board, but this cannot always be done consistently with humanity.

6. I respectfully solicit the orders of Government on the special case now reported, and should be glad of any general instructions Government may be pleased to issue on the whole question raised.

Inclosure 3 in No. 1.

The FIRST ASSISTANT POLITICAL RESIDENT to the ACTING POLITICAL RESIDENT in the PERSIAN GULF.

Bahrein, September 3, 1873.

I HAVE the honour to inform you that whilst Her Majesty's despatch-vessel "May Frere" was lying at anchor to the lee of the uninhabited island of Zairkoo, on the night of the 31st August, a slave swam off from one of the pearl fishing-boats lying near and claimed protection. Mr. Guthrie, the officer commanding the "May Frere," referred the question of the propriety of granting the slave the protection he demanded to me; and I gave my opinion that the man, having once been admitted on board, he was entitled to the protection he claimed.

2. In giving this opinion I was guided, not by any definite instructions I had received on these matters, but by the precedent established by Colonel Pelly in the case of three slaves who swam from shore at Bushire to Her Majesty's Marine gun-boat " Hugh Rose" on or about the 15th August 1872. In this case Colonel Pelly instructed Mr. Campbell, the commanding officer of the " Hugh Rose," not to give the slaves up, though their restoration was demanded by their masters, and the ship was lying at the time in a Persian port. The slaves were brought to me at Bahrein, and I, under instructions from Colonel Pelly, sent them by mail steamer to the Commissioner of Police in Bombay.

3. I have no official documents to refer to in this matter, as I acted on a demi-official note of Colonel Pelly's, but I have no doubt that some correspondence on the subject must have taken place between Colonel Pelly and the Commander of the "Hugh Rose" at the time of the slaves having sought protection on board his ship.

4. I trust that my conduct in this case may meet with your approval. I would respectfully suggest that in the present state of the slave trade question it would be satisfactory to have some definite instructions from Government as to what class of slaves are entitled to receive protection on board British ships, as in both the cases mentioned in this letter the slaves who received protection seemed, without doubt, to come under the head of domestic slaves, and if domestic slaves are allowed to receive protection on board every English ship they come across, the owners will be great losers, and the pearl fishing will come to a standstill, as nearly all the divers belong to that class.

Inclosure 4 in No. 1. The OFFICER COMMANDING the MAY FRERE" to the ACTING POLITICAL RESIDENT in the PERSIAN GULF.

Bushire Roads, September 6, 1873.

I HAVE the honour to report the arrival of Her Majesty's despatch vessel " May Frere," B.M., with Major Grant, 1st Assistant Resident, on board, and to report as follows:

2. Having embarked Major Grant, we left Bahrein on the 27th August last for Shargah: arrived there on the 29th at 5.55 a.m.; left for Debaye at 7.30 a.m., arrived at that place at 8.55 a.m.; left for Aboothabee at 2 p.m., arriving there on the 30th at 10 a.m.; left Aboothabee for Bahrein at 5 a.m.; on the 31st at 6.35 p.m. anchored

under the island of Zukkool on account of bad weather; at 11 p.m. a slave swam on board from one of the 73 pearl boats at anchor there on account of bad weather; Major Grant decided we could not give him up, the slave having once got on board.

On learning this all the pearl boats weighed and put to Thetis affair, we sea in case it might be a second having discovered there were slaves on board the boats, or else to give the slaves a long swim for it if they were determined to try their luck and get on board of us.

Under the circumstances, as I was better able to keep the sea than the pearl boats, I thought it was not right to deprive them of their anchorage; I therefore weighed, and as soon as the boats saw me clear of the island they all returned to the anchorage.

We arrived at Bahrein at 5 p.m. on the 2nd instant, having on account of the weather taken 34 hours to do the distance we do in moderate weather in 20 hours.

The foundation of the maritime truce was peace at sea and protection to pearl boats.

Ships arrived on the banks during the season to prevent Rival tribes fights and quarrels in course of time. quarrelling at sea, instead of fighting, went on with their fishing side by side. One party said, "Ha! you well

know we are in the dominions of the lord of the seas, and must keep quiet, or else you would not have so "much to say, but wait until we get on shore."

The work was so effectually done that there has been no ship sent specially to the banks for years.

But should the trucial chiefs fear a breach among themselves, and require the presence of a ship of war, it would be rather awkward if the cruiser found out that one-third of the boat's crews were slaves, and if he seized them on account of the head money he would be entitled to for them, quoting as precedent "May Frere" carried a slave away from the pearl banks, and he was not given up.

One has actually to see to believe that there is such a large number of fishing boats among the shoals and islands betwixt Aboothabee and Ras-Rekkan.

We left Bahrein at 2 p.m. yesterday, with Major Grant on board, and arrived here at 9 p.m. to-day.

Name of slave, Joah, married; his wife and daughter at Debaye.

Name of owner of slave, Safe; inhabitant of and owner of the boat which belongs to Debaye.

Please what am I to do with the slave?

Inclosure 5 in No. 1.

The POLITICAL RESIDENT in the PERSIAN GULF to the SECRETARY to the GOVERNMENT of BOMBAY.

Bushire, July 17, 1871. WHILE Her Majesty's ship "Magpie" was recently lying at anchor in the inner roads of Bushire two slaves introduced themselves on board.

2. Subsequently I received two letters of reclamation concerning these slaves, the one from the Persian Slave Commissioner, and the other from a British protected subject residing at Bushire.

3. It appeared from the letter of the Persian Slave Commissioner, and from its inclosure, that the slave referred to by him was the property of a Persian subject, and I considered that, under the terms of the documents marginally noted, we were precluded by positive agreement interfering directly or indirectly with slaves the property of Persians found within the territorial waters of Persia.

*

66

9. A few evenings after the above occurrences other Bullfinch," slaves came alongside Her Majesty's ship whose commander, as it was quite competent for him to do, declined receiving them on board.

10. But it is likely that cases may hereafter occur of slaves seeking refuge on Her Majesty's vessels of war, and I would, therefore, respectfully solicit instructions providing for this contingency.

1st. I presume that, as a general rule, a slave boarding one of Her Majesty's vessels without the limit of territorial waters (id est, beyond a sea league from the shore line, and without the line of the King's Chambers) would come under the law of the ship and be free.

2nd. Would the fact of the Persian Gulf being a narrow sea, almost wholly landlocked, give a riparian power territorial or other jurisdiction thereon beyond the distance of a sea league from the shore line, or should the gulf beyond the distance of a sea league from the shore line be considered as the high sea?

3rd. Apart from the provisions of any positive law or Treaty engagement in the case, would a British vessel of war be authorized in refusing to surrender a slave who might have found refuge on board such vessel of war, being at the time of the refugee's boarding her, within the territorial waters of the power reclaiming the slave.

Inclosure 6 in No. 1.

The ACTING SECRETARY to the GOVERNMENT of BOMBAY to the POLITICAL RESIDENT in the PERSIAN GULF. Bombay Castle, November 29, 1871.

I AM directed to inform you that his Excellency in Council has consulted the law officers with reference to the questions contained in your letter of the 17th July last, paragraph 10, and that in their opinion

1. The commander of a British ship-of-war is not bound to receive fugitive slaves on board his vessel, yet if he does receive them they become free.

2. The Honourable the Advocate-General states that he is not aware that the Persian Gulf has ever been diplomatically treated as a narrow sea. He would be sorry, without higher authority, to say anything which could be construed into an admission of the right of the riparian powers in the Persian Gulf; but if it is to be treated politically as a narrow sea, the legal consequence follows that it belongs to the surrounding territory or territories in as full and complete a manner as a fresh water lake, and that such riparian power has jurisdiction, ad medium filum aquæ, without any limitation as to the distance of a marine league, in regard to merchant and private vessels.

3. The commanders of British men-of-war would not only be authorized in refusing to surrender a slave who had found refuge on board his vessel, but would incur very serious legal responsibilities if he in any way attempted to coerce that slave to return to his master.

questions which you have put involve very important considerations of international law, the correspondence will be forwarded for the instructions of Her Majesty's Government. Meanwhile, until the orders of the Secretary of State are received, I am to communicate to you the views of his Excellency in Council, so far as he is in a position to form a judgment on the question, and these views may be considered as provisional instructions for your guidance.

2. As regards British ships on the high seas, there appears to be little difficulty. Whether the vessel is a a national ship or a private one it is subject on the high seas to British law. Persons coming on board are subject to British law also, and slaves taking refuge on board therefore become free.

3. In the case of British vessels lying within the territorial waters of a friendly State where slavery still prevails, the question is more complicated.

4. British vessels so situated, which are not national ships but the property of private owners, are subject to the jurisdiction and law of the State within whose confines they are, at least, to take a restricted view, so far as regards acts done by those on board which affect the peace of the State or the persons and property of its subjects. Under these circumstances the master of a private British ship would not, in the opinion of his Excellency in Council, be justified in refusing to deliver up a runaway slave to his lawful owner or to the authorities of the State on proper demand being made.

5. Vessels of war, on the other hand, have certain privileges within the local jurisdiction of a foreign nation, and although the authorities are not very explicit on the subject, his Excellency in Council apprehends that the same principles would apply to national and public vessels of a peaceful character, and that certain privileges (e.g., in regard to claims against the ship itself, to matters affecting its internal discipline and affairs, and possibly also to service of process on board and the like), would extend to such vessels as well as to men-of-war. But his Excellency in Council is of opinion that these privileges do not, even in the case of vessels of war, operate to set aside the law of the country to the injury of the inhabitants thereof. In the opinion of his Excellency in Council, therefore, Commanders of British national vessels ought, like masters of private British vessels, to give up fugitive slaves when duly demanded.

6. His Excellency in Council is disposed to think that, in the absence of any treaties or understanding with a foreign Power bearing expressly on the subject, the following rules may be provisionally adopted as a safe guide for the treatment of such cases as are likely to occur:(a.) Commanders of ships riding in foreign territory should not receive domestic slaves on board except under urgent circumstances, as, e.g., when a man would be drowned if he was rejected.

(b.) They should return slaves to their lawful owners or to the public authorities of the place on proper demand being made.

(c.) Commanders of ships which may be technically on the high seas, but practically are brought into close contact with the owners of domestic slaves, should do what they can to avoid receiving the slaves on board their vessels.

(d.) If nevertheless, such slaves do come on board, the

Commander may exercise a discretion whether to return the slave to his master, supposing proper demand to be made, or to retain him and set him at liberty.

(e.) Commanders of vessels which are to all intents and purposes on the high seas, should freely receive fugitive slaves on board and set them at liberty on the first convenient opportunity.

7. Applying these rules to the case of the "May Frere " and the slave Joah, the first important question is, where was the ship when the slave came on board? If the island called Zairkoo, and said to be uninhabited, is also, as his Excellency in Council supposes it is, in the nature of a no-man's-land, the ship was for legal purposes on the high seas. Major Grant, therefore, was within his right when he refused to give up Joah, and Joah is now entitled to be set at liberty.

8. Whether there is anything peculiar in the position of the pearl fisheries so as to give them the character of national property does not appear. The questions arising in such a case as that of the "May Frere" may possibly be affected by the status of the fisheries, though probably they would not be.

9. In paragraph 10 of his letter of 17th July 1871, Colonel Pelly has raised a question about the legal position of the Persian Gulf which, if the case is not affected by any negotiations or prior proceedings, does not seem to his

Excellency in Council very difficult to answer. In the opinion of his Excellency in Council a water so large as the Persian Gulf, the shores of which are owned by different nations, should be treated as a high sea at the usual distance from the shore.

No. 2.

MR. BOURKE to the SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY, SIR, Foreign Office, April 30, 1875.

A QUESTION has recently been raised by the Government of India as to how far officers in command of Her Majesty's ships are justified in receiving on board fugitive slaves who, escaping from their masters, may claim the protection of the British flag. Such cases, as the Lords of the Admiralty are doubtless aware, are of frequent occurrence on the East Coast of Africa, on the Hadramaut coast, and in the Persian Gulf, and may be divided into three classes :

First. Where slaves come on board a ship or boat in harbour, or within territorial waters, either to escape from the alleged cruelty of their masters, or to avoid the consequences of their misdeeds.

Secondly. Where the British ship or boat is on the high seas, and the refugee slave, escaping, perhaps, from a dhow also at sea, would be in danger of losing his life were he not received on board.

Thirdly. Where a person has been detained on shore in a state of slavery, and, escaping to a British ship or boat, claims protection on the ground that he has been so detained contrary to treaties existing between Great Britain and the country from the shores of which he escapes, as in the case of territories which, like Oman, Madagascar, and Johanna, are partially free.

The broad rule to be observed in this question appears to be that a fugitive slave should not be permanently received on board any description of ship under the British flag, unless his life would be endangered if he were not allowed to come on board. The reason for this rule is that, were it otherwise, the practical result would be, in the first instance, to encourage and assist a breach of the law of the country, and next to protect the person breaking that law. And a contrary rule would lead to endless disputes and difficulties with the legal masters of slaves; for it might happen, to take an extreme instance, that the whole slave portion of the crews of vessels engaged in the pearl fishery in the Persian Gulf might take refuge on board British ships; and, if free there, their masters would be entirely ruined, and the mistrust and hatred caused in their minds would be greatly prejudicial to British

interests.

Such, then, being the general and broad rule, it remains to apply it, so far as possible, to the three classes of cases mentioned above.

In the first class, the slave must not be allowed to remain on board after it has been proved to the satisfaction of the officer in command that he is legally a slave.

In the second, the slave should be retained on board on the ground that, on the high seas, the British vessel is a part of the dominions of the Queen; but when the vessel returns within the territorial limits of the country from a vessel of which the slave has escaped, he will be liable to be surrendered, on demand being made, supported by necessary proofs.

In the third class, a negro might claim protection on the ground that being, by the terms of a Treaty, free, he was nevertheless being detained as a slave. It would then become the duty of the commanding officer to satisfy himself as to the truth of this statement, and to be guided in his subsequent proceedings in regard to such person by the result of his inquiries, and the law which would then affect the case. Those interested in maintaining the slavery of the person claiming his freedom should assist at the inquiry; and in the event of his claim being established, the local authorities should be requested to take steps to ensure his not relapsing into slavery.

It will thus be seen that, as a general principle, care should be taken that slaves are not misled into the belief that they will find their liberty by getting under the British flag afloat, or induced by the presence of a British ship to leave their own ships, if at sea, or their employment, if on shore.

The Earl of Derby has arrived at the opinion above expressed, after consulting the Law Officers of the Crown, and I am directed by his Lordship to request, that in communicating his Lordship's views on this question to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, you will suggest to their Lordships that instructions in this sense should