SECOND READING. (Hansard, 30 June 1876)

§ THE EARL OF NORTHBROOK
agreed with the noble Marquess that the rulers of the Native States as well as Her Majesty's Government were most desirous to suppress the slave trade. He did not know as to whether any correspondence had taken place on the subject between Her Majesty's Government and the Indian Government; but if there had been he thought it ought to be laid on 735 the Table before their Lordships went into Committee on the Bill.

§ LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY
said, that the consent of the rulers of Indian States ought to have been obtained, and might have been obtained, for the jurisdiction the Bill proposed to assume; this was the more evident from what had been said by the noble Lord who had spoken last, since he said that the rulers of the Native States desired to suppress the slave trade. Great hardships might be caused by this Bill, since the term slave trade would affect not only the Banyans who advanced money in Zanzibar for carrying on the traffic in negroes, but also any Indian who might have in his house a woman that this Bill would call a slave, though she might form part of his family. Such a case had occurred; an Indian who was not a British subject had been sent as a prisoner to India, from Zanzibar, by the British Consul on account of a slave girl. This man had died a prisoner, and the case which had been related to him by Asiatic was looked upon by them as one of great injustice.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
, in reply, stated that the position of the Native Princes of India was not only different with regard to each other and with regard to the Queen, but was unexampled and unparalleled. He did not think that they would view with favour a revision of the existing Treaties on the ground put forward by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley.) No correspondence had been had with the Indian Government on the subject of this Bill, and, therefore, there was not any to lay upon the Table.