Mr. Green,
Political
Agent at
Muscat.

Captain
Felix Jones,

Political
Resident in
the Persian

Gulf.

1070. Do you mean recently?—Yes. I fancy that he had not been there more than a "month or two."

The other case was that of a slave girl, who had got on board the ship during the night. She also had marks of ill-treatment about her; but he considered that he was bound to give her up, and he did so.

There were also, it seems, two cases when he was serving in the flagship the "Glasgow." In one case the slave was returned to his master through Dr. Kirk. In the other no demand was ever made for the slave, and he was accordingly kept on board as a Seedee boy.

Then we have Mr. Green, who was Political Agent at Muscat for nine months in 1862. He said in answer to the question:

"1101. When a slave ran into your own house to seek protection, what did you do?— "I used to act exactly in the same way. I used then to try the case myself on its own "merits. If there was good and sufficient evidence brought forward to show that the man "was a servant, I used most decidedly to let him go. I turned him out of my house and let "him go back to his own master."

And again further on :

"1141. In the case of the three slaves going on board men-of-war what happened; were they given up or not? They were given up, principally at my own request after inquiry.

1142. All three ?—I think all three; it is now a long time since, but I think that there "were three cases.'

The next witness is Captain Felix Jones, who was for eight years Political Resident in the Persian Gulf, from 1855 to 1864. The witness replied thus:

"1209. At that time you had some business in connexion with fugitive slaves ?-Constant. "1210. There is one case which has been brought to our notice, namely, a case of Lieutenant Disbrowe, in which he brought forward a correspondence with Commodore Jenkins? -Yes, I remember the case very well. You allude to the date of the 21st September 1858. "1211. September 1858?-In that case Commodore Jenkins held the favourite position, "I may say of the navy, that a ship of war was to be treated like British territory ?-Quite so. "1212. And that a slave who once got on board a ship of war was as free as if he had "landed in England?-Quite so.

"1213. You pointed out, I think, the inconveniences which would result in the Gulf "from such a doctrine being carried to the full extent ?-I did in some respects.

"1214. You said that it would disincline the people there to aid us in preventing the slave "trade ?-I did.

"1215. And that therefore you thought it not advisable to insist upon those strict terms?— "I thought it not advisable to insist upon the retention of slaves who had been for a long "time in the country as domestic slaves, and absolutely appertaining to the soil. I did not "allude to fresh imports from the coast of Africa.

66

"1250. I think you said that some of the slaves in the pearl fisheries you have known to come on board the ships ?-Occasionally.

"1251. On the high seas?—I cannot exactly call it the high seas, because the pearl banks are well known to be part of the soil, or are considered to be part of the possessions of the tribes located in their vicinity; they are a sort of property.

"1252. Then it has been when the pearl boats have been in the neighbourhood of the "pearl fisheries?--Certainly, when the pearl boats have been engaged on these banks in the pearl fisheries.

"1253. Then you have considered, in those cases, that the slaves coming on board your ship have come on board your ship in their territorial waters ?-Certainly.

"1254. And on that ground, therefore, if a demand had been made would you have given "them up ?—No, I think not; if they had been freshly imported slaves they certainly would not have been given up.

"1255. I do not mean slaves freshly imported, but domestic slaves employed in the pearl "fisheries ? Certainly those domestic slaves employed in the pearl fisheries and proved to be "domestic slaves would have been surrendered."

The above are all the cases, which have been brought under the notice of the Commission up to this date, bearing more immediately on the point under consideration. They show a uniformity of practice, which I confess that I should hardly have expected. They show, with only two or three exceptions, that when slaves (other than newly imported slaves, whom we are entitled by treaty to liberate,) have come on board our ships-of-war, whilst those ships have been within the territorial waters of a State where slavery by law exists, the commanding officers have, on demand, almost invariably delivered them up, as they were bound to do, either to the local authorities or to the owners; and that in those few cases in which this course has not been pursued, and the slaves have been taken away, the officer has been

reprimanded by the authorities in this country. And the very important evidence given a day or two since by Mr. Aitchison, the Secretary for Foreign Relations in India, but which has not yet been printed, shows that in that gentleman's opinion this is the only proper course to follow, and that it will be more likely to lead to the final extinction not only of the slave trade, but of slavery itself, than any arbitrary interference with the local laws, which we should never dare to apply to other than the most feeble States.

Let me now, in conclusion, briefly resume what I set out with endeavouring to prove, and what I venture to think that I have succeeded in doing.

It appears to me, first, that, whether "by comity of nations," or on the principle of "implied assent," or by whatever other name we are pleased to call it, a ship of war, its officers, crew, and all belonging to it, are, when they are within foreign territorial waters, exempt from the local jurisdiction in all matters relating to the management and discipline of the ship, and the relation of the officers and crew to one another; but that this exemption goes no further, and most certainly would not avail to protect a subject of the State in whose waters the ship was, or indeed anyone, from having to answer for any offence committed against the laws of that State. It has, I venture to think, been shown that, whilst all writers on international law maintain the exemption of the ship of war and all belonging to her to the extent which I have stated, no one except Ortolan and Historicus have ever maintained that that exemption extends to every person who may get on board her, whether belonging to her or not, and whether that person may have violated the laws of the country or not. I have shown, by quotations from the writings of Lampredi and Azuni, from opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States, from Lord Stowell, Kent, and Phillimore, that, if a person who has offended against the laws of a State takes refuge on board a foreign ship of war lying in its territorial waters, the local authorities of that State may, in the event of a demand for his surrender being refused, either remove him forcibly from the ship, or take out a writ of habeas corpus against the commanding officer, to compel him to comply with the demand. I have shown also that it has been the uniform practice of naval officers on demand to surrender slaves (other than newly imported ones), and that in the few cases in which this course has not been followed, the officer has been reprimanded. Lastly, I venture to think that such a course of proceeding is more consonant with our own dignity, and more likely to conduce to the final extinction of slavery and the slave trade, than any arbitrary interference with the laws of other countries.

April 6th, 1876.

H. C. ROTHERY.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

THE ROYAL COMMISSION ON FUGITIVE SLAVES.

Saturday, 11th March 1876.

PRESENT:

HIS GRACE THE DUKE OF SOMERSET, K.G., IN THE CHAIR.

THE RIGHT HON. SIR ROBERT J. PHILLIMORE,
D.C.L.

THE RIGHT HON. MOUNTAGUE Bernard, D.C.L.
THE HON. MR. JUSTICE ARCHIBALD.
SIR HENRY T. HOLLAND, BART., C.M.G., M.P.

REAR-ADMIRAL ARTHUR CUMMING, C.B., R.N., examined.

1. (Chairman.) You were on the East Coast of Africa ?-Yes.

2. At what date ?—I have been there several times. I took the command of the East India Station in March 1872.

3. Had you been there before ?-No, not on that

Rear-Admiral
A. Cumming,
C.B.

11 Mar. 1876,

11 Mar. 1876.

from doing so.

28. Therefore there was a sort of compromise, and at a part of the year the slave trade might go on ?— Yes. Practically.

29. Do you mean that it might go on to the Persian Gulf, or that it might go on only locally to the coast? What you call the coast, opposite Zanzibar. In short the dominions of the Sultan, I think, extended 600 or 700 miles north, and south, opposite, say to Zanzibar, and as far inland as he could make his authority felt.

30. What we have to do with is rather what was going on upon the sea. The slave trade went on upon the sea for a certain distance from the land during a part of the year ? Yes.

45. (Chairman.) After 1873, that was all put an end to ?—Yes; we used to take them within three miles anywhere, even in the roadstead, when we were at anchor at Zanzibar.

46. But you had to distinguish between the slave who was for sale and the domestic slave?—Yes.

47. And if the dhow contained only domestic slaves, you had to leave it alone?-Exactly so.

48. During the time that you were there were any mistakes committed; did officers sometimes take and destroy dhows for which they had to pay compensation?—Yes; no doubt of it, but they did it on their own responsibility. The government was liberal enough not to make them pay if it was a disputed case; it came before the court, and the vessel was released, and some of the owners claimed damages.

31. After the Treaty of 1873 it was abandoned? 49. (Sir F

It was; you could take those vessels in territorial
waters whenever you could get them, and release the
slaves.

32. Had your officers much difficulty in distin-
guishing between the domestic slaves, and the slaves
that were taken for sale ?—None whatever.

33. How did they distinguish the character of the two descriptions of slaves ?-A slave recently made a captive looks like a wild animal, and a domestic slave is quite composed; you cannot make a mistake.

34. (Mr. Rothery.) By the third Article of the Treaty with Zanzibar of October the 20th, 1845, it was provided in the following terms, the Sultan gave

66

permission to seize and confiscate any vessels the "property of His Highness, or of his subjects, "carrying on slave trade, excepting only such as are

66

engaged in the transport of slaves from one port to "another of his own dominions in Africa, between "the port of Lamoo to the north, and its dependen"cies, the northern limit of which is the north point "of Kayhoo Island, in 1° 57′ south latitude, and the port of Keelwa to the south, and its dependencies, "the southern limit of which is Souga, Manara, or Pagoda Point, in 9° 2′ south latitude, including "the Islands of Zanzibar, Pemba, and Monfea." You of course know that provision ?—Yes.

66

66

35. And that lasted up to the year 1873, when the new Treaty was made ?—Yes.

36. It was during a certain season that they were allowed to carry on the slave trade?—Yes.

37. It was in consequence of an agreement, which was not in the nature of a Treaty, but by proclamation of the Sultan, that it was limited to about four months?—Yes; it must have formed a part of a Treaty or an agreement with Her Majesty's Govern

40. Did the monsoon admit of it ?-Yes; they cannot move excepting with the wind.

41. (Mr. Rothery.) They chiefly went from Kilwa ? -Yes.

42. Kilwa was the great port of export from the coast of Africa, was it not?-That varied; when it was too vigilantly watched, they moved to some other place.

43. But was not that the general port ?-Yes, you may say so.

44. And thence probably they went to Zanzibar, but sometimes they avoided Zanzibar, and went quite out to sea beyond it? Yes, but they might go where they liked in the Sultan's territory, whether to his islands or to the mainland.

Robert Phillimore.) The vessel was reground that the slaves she carried were domestic slaves?—Yes.

on

50. (Sir Henry Holland.) That proves that they had some difficulty at all events in certain cases in distinguishing between domestic and other slaves? -Yes; but I never saw that difficulty myself.

51. (Chairman.) The officers have an inducement to take the dhow and burn it, because they get the money for a proportion of the tonnage, and they get money for the slaves ?—Yes.

52. Therefore an officer has that inducement to take slaves, at. any rate?-Yes; but he places his commission in peril if he disobeys my instructions. I act according to the wishes of the Admiralty, and am guided by the slave instructions, and those orders are issued by the commander-in-chief to his commanders, for their guidance.

53. The officer also had an inducement when he had taken a dhow to say that it was not seaworthy, and to destroy it ?—Yes.

54. Was any alteration made as to the payment of officers for the destruction of dhows?-There were certain alterations. In former years the commanderin-chief got a great deal more than his proper share, and a more equal distribution was made amongst the officers and the ship's company.

55. (Mr. Rothery.) His grace refers to the amount of bounties, I think, which were payable. Formerly, the bounties were payable only upon the slaves, and the proceeds of the vessel ?-Yes.

56. But afterwards when vessels were captured without any slaves on board, the officers got a bounty of 4l. a ton in lieu of the slave bounty in addition to the proceeds ?—Yes.

57. Then when vessels began to be destroyed, they got an additional bounty of 17. 10s. per ton, in lieu of the proceeds of the vessel if sold whole?—Yes. If the vessel has a certain amount of slaves on board, it is optional with the commander of the ship capturing that dhow to take a bounty for the slaves, or for the tonnage, according to his own interest.

58. (Chairman.) I suppose that you very often anchored in Zanzibar ?-Very often.

59. Could you form any opinion, from your experience at Zanzibar, and upon the coast, of the number of slaves that were carried across to the Persian Gulf?-No; that is a very difficult thing to do. One heard reports, and one communicated a great deal with Doctor Kirk, the Consul-General there, but he was only guided by reports.

60. You could not tell whether 10,000 or 20,000 slaves were taken over in the year?-It was impossible to do so. Some of the political agents in the Gulf of Persia (and at Muscat there is generally one) would be better able to answer those questions than a naval officer. The political agent is resident there; he moves round the coast.

61. Did slaves often, or ever, beg to be received on board your ships,-did they ever swim off, or get into small boats and come alongside ?-During my command, that occurred only three times.

62. (Sir Robert Phillimore.) Do you mean the coming of slaves in a boat, or swimming?-One