§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY,in calling attention to the expediency of making provision for the more effectual punishment of the subjects of Native Princes in India who are guilty of the offence of slave trading, and presenting a Bill upon the subject, said: My Lords, the Bill of which I have given Notice is one of considerable importance, and its object may be shortly explained; but I must apologize for not bringing it for- 237 ward at an earlier period. I postponed doing so, because I hoped the Report of the Royal Commission on the Slave Circular might be in your Lordships' hands before I introduced the Bill, and that I might be certain that in the provisions of the Bill there was nothing that required to be amended in consequence of that Report. The case is this—the slave trade on the coast of Africa had been pointed out by Dr. Livingstone to be in the hands of agents of British Indian subjects. This was not strictly correct. It was in the hands, to some degree, of those who were under British rule; but, speaking more exactly, it was in the hands of the subjects of Native Princes, who are under the protection of the Queen. Until lately it was believed that the laws against the slave trade at Mozambique, Zanzibar, and other places in those seas applied as much against the subjects of Native Princes of India as against those who were under the direct protection of Her Majesty. But in 1874 the case of a Cutchee, the subject of the Rao of Cutch, was brought before the High Court of Bombay. A charge of slave-dealing was preferred against him at the instance of the Consul at Zanzibar; and it appeared by the decision of Mr. Justice Gibbs that the Court had no legal power to try a subject of a Native Prince for offences against the English law; and the result was that he was released. Now, this was an obvious failure of justice. In the case of independent Princes negotiations might have been set on foot, and the subjects of those Princes might have been bound by Treaty between the Sultan of Zanzibar and the other Native Princes. But we have bound the Native Princes in alliance with the Queen not to enter into Treaties with foreign Powers. They have surrendered their foreign relations into our hands, and that remedy, therefore, is not practicable; and it is necessary, as you give them protection and undertake all the duties which fall to the Foreign Office with respect to their subjects, to undertake also the duty of punishing them if they commit crimes against the law. The proposal of the Bill, therefore, is to remedy the defect which was discovered by the judgment of Mr. Justice Gibbs, and to enact that the laws against the slave trade—we propose to limit it to that—shall be enforceable in the High 238 Court of Bombay against the subjects of Princes in alliance with Her Majesty, just in the same way as they are now enforceable against British subjects. Another defect which was brought to light by the judgment I have referred to we also propose to remedy. It turned out that there were no means of taking evidence by commission at the distant places where the offence was committed. If a slave trader is discovered at Zanzibar and sent to Bombay for trial it is almost impossible to send with him the actual witnesses necessary to prove the case. Some may be sent, but all cannot. In the case of British subjects there is a law under which evidence can be taken by commission, and we propose to extend that law by the Bill to the cases with which it deals. Another power we propose to take which, though it is not of very great importance, I think it right to mention. By the existing law all subjects of the Queen committing those offences are tried in the High Court of Bombay, but only Native subjects are tried under the law of England. The result is that the High Court of Bombay has to administer another law in the case of other subjects of the Queen not coming under the denomination of Native Indian subjects. I need not say that there is no difference in substance between the two laws; but there are differences of detail, and inconvenience sometimes arises in the case of persons guilty of the same offence but of different extraction. They are tried under two different laws, and the Court has to administer a law with which it is not familiar. We propose that all subjects of the Queen in custody in India and tried for the offence of slave dealing shall be tried at Bombay under the Indian Criminal Code. That Code is recited in the Bill, and provision is made for its amendment, should amendment be found necessary. These may seem small provisions to attach importance to; but any person who has studied the subject will know that it was necessary to remedy the defects I have pointed out. If Africa were left to herself the slave trade would very rapidly disappear. The very want of civilization, the very savagery which exposes the populations of that Continent to the ravages of the slave dealer—would cure the evil by preventing the appearance of persons of sufficient enterprize and capi- 239 tal and still to carry on those nefarious operations. The great evil comes from the fact of there being men of a higher stage of civilization, of Arab or Indian extraction, possessed of sufficient knowledge, arms, and organization to enable them to make victims of the helpless populations of Africa. If you reach those men of a superior civilization by the penalties of the law, you will do more to stop the slave trade than you can in any other way; and we who have under our rule, directly or indirectly, 250,000,000 of Orientals, furnish no small contingent of the capitalists—if I may call them so—by whom this traffic is carried on. It is essential that the arm of the law should reach the crime they commit. Especially after the judgment which has been pronounced in Bombay there would be no security for the administration of the law; for not only would you be exposed to slave dealing on the part of the subjects of the Native Princes, but it would be impossible to distinguish between those who had been born on their soil and ours, which would practically leave the traffic open to the whole of the Indian population. There is one thing I ought to mention—namely, that the Rao did his best to check his subjects in these nefarious operations, but the Court of Bombay was unable to give effect to his Proclamation on the subject. I believe, my Lords, that if this measure be passed, a great and beneficial advance will be made, and that other Sovereigns and Chiefs will be led to give us power to deal with their subjects, and that we shall come nearer and nearer to the object of deterring from this traffic all those races whose superior civilization now enable them to engage in it. The noble Marquess then presented" a Bill for more effectually punishing offences against the laws relating to the Slave Trade," and moved that it be now read the first time.
§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he had no objection to the objects of this Bill; but unless the consent of the various Indian Sovereigns whose subjects it was proposed to punish by the Bill, had been given, the measure would propose to enact that which was contrary to the law of nations and an usurpation. The Bill was apparently intended to operate against the Banyans, who traded principally at Zan- 240 zibar, and probably they belonged to a very small number of States, and the consent of their Rulers might easily be obtained; and unless that consent were given this country had no right to inflict penalties on those subjects, and he would feel bound to offer all the opposition to it in his power.
§ EARL GRANVILLEobserved that it would not be convenient at that stage to discuss the provisions of the Bill. From the information the noble Marquess had afforded them he felt convinced that the inclination of the House would be to give the Government all the power they required to carry out the object they had in view.
§ Motion agreed to; Bill read la; and to be printed. (No. 135.)