Page 250 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

74
that these two slaves were at Bombay precluded their restoration to their
respective owners, and no further action in respect to them was required.
170. But the legality of the proceedings of the Resident in Bushire and of
the Consular Court at Maskat were called in question, and as our legal advisers
themselves differed, the points were referred to the Home Government.
The following opinions were expressed on the several points that arose in
this case by the Law Officers of the Crown
Secret, October 1880, Not. 73-77.
(their letter, dated 1st March 1880, to the
Foreign Office) :—
“That in our opinion Captain Pridraux, acting with the sanction of the Persian author­
ities, was justihea in his search on board the British Steam Ship Rokcby while lying in
Bushire harbour. 1 b
Captain Prideaux would have had no authority to seize and detain the boy Abdulla
without the intervention of the Persian authorities, and he was justified in obtaining the
surrender of Abdulla by and through the intervention of the Persian authorities.
Captain Clayton wa6, in our opinion, not justified in seizing the seven slaves owned by
foreigners on board a British private vessel lying in a foreign harbour. Such vessel was
subject to the jurisdiction of the country within the teriitory cf which she was lying, and
the action of Captain Clayton was contrary to the principles and practice of international
law.
The proper course for Captain Clayton to have adopted would have been to apply for
and obtain the intervention of the Persian authorities.
The case in out» opinion ought not to have been brought before the Mascat Court. We
entirely agree with Mr. Phillipps that that Court has no jurisdiction at all in the matter.
And supposing the Court to have had jurisdiction, the slaves, in respect to whom
it was to adjudicate, should have been brought before the Court, or at least have been
within its local jurisdiction.
Lastly, we are of opinion that a slave does not absolutely obtain his freedom by having
been on board a British private ship, and that if such a slave returns 10 the country of
his master, aud where slavery is recognised, Her Majesty's Government could not properly
insist upon such a slave being liberated or beld to be free.
171. On a further reference the Law' Officers stated (their letter, dated 16th
January 1881J —
Political A., July 1881, 2Jo*. 75-78.
“That, in our opinion,a British officer is not, snder 36 and 37 Viet., Chap. 88, section
3, justified in seizing slaves on board a British vessel within the waters of a Foreign State
without the consent by treaty or otherwise of such state, in cases where the vessel is
1 engaged in, or fitted out for the slave trade.'
The question raised bv the Indian Government, whether the Consular Court at
Maskat has jurisdiction as a Court of Admiralty to condemn vessels or slaves when brought
within its jurisdiction without regard to the place where they are captured, or
whether the jurisdiction of that Court is limited to vessels and slaves suspected of being
used and detained for the purpose of the slave trade within the dominions of Maskat, is
one of considerable difficulty. If it rested only on the construction of the Slave Trade
(East African Courts) Act, 1873, we think it would be held that the Consul at Maskat was
entitled to exercise only the more limited jurisdiction. We think the definition of ‘ East
African Courts " contained in that Act, when read with section 3, limited the jurisdiction
of the Consul to cases where he was acting within the powers conferred upon him by order
in Council.
But an Act has since been passed [the Slave Trade (East African Courts) c ,
1879], to which the attention of the Government of India does not appear to ce.°
called, which materially alters the Act of 1870. By the late Act a new dc mi ion is
substituted for the term "East African Court." And when this new definition is rraa
with section 3 of the Act of 1873, we think, though the point is not free from ou ,
the jurisdiction of the Consul is no longer limited as it was before.
Wc write this on the assumption tint this extended jurisdiction is consistent with the
terms of the treaty between this country aud the Imam of Maskat, which is not e