Political No. 66 of 1874, Forwarding for Consideration Copies of Correspondence Relating to Certain Questions which have Arisen Regarding the Jurisdiction of the Political Agent at Zanzibar in Dealing with Breaches of the Slave Laws [‎350r] (41/56)

1,
!S
(
k
Your Highness will be good enough to bear in mind that, whilst by the
terms of the late Treaty concluded for the suppression of the slave trade, it is
obligatory on Your Highness to use your utmost endeavours to prevent Arabs
and all others from carrying slaves from place to place, so is it equally the duty
of Her Majesty the Queen to see that Natives of India residing here do not hold
slaves, and I have received the most stringent orders to see that this is carried
into effect, in order that no one may say that we look differently on the Indians
under our rule and on the Arabs over whom we claim no authority.
Your Highness will know, in their own country Indians are not permitted
to hold slaves, and if they buy slaves here it is simply to make money out of
them, and this is quite different from the Arabs who have always possessed
domestic slaves in their families.
But my orders from the Government are so stringent that to accede to
Your Highness’ request in this case is utterly impossible.
Enclosure No. 4.
No. 65, dated Zanzibar, 19th September 1873.
From—Her Majesty’s Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. and Consul-General, Zanzibar,
To—Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department.
With reference to the subject of my letter No. 63 of 17th September
1873, and with the view of bringing the difference in the various classes of
cases before the Bight Hon’ble the Viceroy and Governor-General in Council,
I have the honor to report that one Jumma bin Jafer, an Indian, was charged
in the Court with illegal slave-holding.
2. On investigation it appeared that the seven Africans on his plantation
held certificates of freedom drawn up in an irregular manner. All were, how
ever, anxious to remain with their masters, deposing that they were virtually
free, happy, and contented. I therefore furnished each individual with properly
attested papers of freedom, which were delivered into their own hands at Her
Britannic Majesty’s Agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. , Jumma bin Jafer giving the usual present of one
dollar at the same time to each of them, in keeping with a Zanzibar custom.
3. A third case is now under examination of a more important nature.
A charge brought against a Memnon of Sind, comprising a refusal to attend
the summons of this Court and a resumption into slavery of slaves freed by the
Agency An office of the East India Company and, later, of the British Raj, headed by an agent. . On this I shall report by the next steamer.
4. I would bring before the notice of the Bight Hon’ble the Viceroy
and Governor-General in Council the fact that as yet no complaint has been
lodged against any Indian registered as under British protection. The cases
hitherto brought forward are against Indians who have never claimed our pro
tection and who, until the signing of the late Treaty, occupied an anomalous
position.
5. All of the three cases, I should further observe, are cases of domestic
slavery.
Enclosure No. 5.
No. 70, dated Zanzibar, 4th October 1873.
From—Her Majesty’s Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. and Consul-General, Zanzibar,
To—Secretary to the Government of India, Foreign Department.
In my letter No. 65 of 19th September 1873, T had the honor to refer to
the case of a Memnon of Sind then under examination before the Consular
Court.
2. I did not feel justified in transferring this case to the High Court of
Bombay, as with written statements of evidence alone a conviction could
scarcely have been insured, and the expenses and difficulties in forwarding
native witnesses would have been considerable.
7