Page 259 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

33
184. In addressing the Secretary of State the Government of India referred
to Duke of Argyll’s despatch No. 84, dated toth July 1873, and requested that
the necessary steps might be taken for the recovery of the amount from the
Imperial Treasury (despatch No. 149, dated 4th December iS8j). What action
was taken on this request, it is not clear.
185. In 1885 cxDenditure was incurred bv the Resident at Aden to the
External A., March 1885. No. 39. amount of Rs. 22,884-8-6 on account of
t* See Chapter IX (ii). J the slaves brought* by the Philomel, and
was debited by the Bombay Government to the Imperial Government, London.
186. The Political Agent at Maskat spent Rs. 102 for return passages of
the escort of two constables sent from
External A., June 1885, Nos. 136-140.
Aden in charge of certain slave dealers
and crew of the dhow captured by the Philomel in the lastmentionedcr.se. The
Government of India admitted the charge, but invited the Resident’s attention
to this letter No. 273t-G., dated 16th November 1883 (above quoted), and
informed him that the Comptroller, India Treasuries, had been told that the
charges should be debited to Her Majesty's Imperial Government (letter No.
775-G., dated 21st May 1885).
187. In March 1888 the Government of India received a despatch from the
External A., July 188S, Nos. aoi-3to. Secretary of State requiring information
External A , May 1889, Nos. 162-169. on behalf of Her Majesty’s Treasury as to
the circumstances under which certain slaves were received and dieted at the
Maskat Consulate, for the maintenance of whom the Comptroller of India Trea­
suries had held Her Majesty’s Government liable in the lists of such charges which
he submitted direct to the India Office.
188. The information was given in a letter from the Officiating Political
Agent at Maskat, No. 147, dated the 19th May 18S8, which accompanied
despatch No. 104, dated the 30th June 18SS. It was explained in that letter that
the slaves in question were fugitive slaves from the province of Oman, who
either sought protection at the Consulate from the cruel treatment of their masters,
or claimed their liberty under the stipulations of the Treaty of 1873 with the Maskat
Government ; that during the investigation of their cases, etc., they were protected
and dieted at the Consulate ; that this practice had been followed since 1874; and
that the expenditure on that account, although an Imperial charge, had before
been debited to the contingent account of the Maskat Agency.
189. Since then certain further charges of a similar nature were incurred and
the Comptroller-General likewise showed them in his lists of charges against the
Imperial Government. The total amount involved up to May last was ^13-10-11.
190. Her Majesty’s Treasury declined to admit the liability of the Imperial
revenues for the charge in question for the following reasons:—
(1) that it was a complete novelty, and involved the change of practice of
14 years’ standing:
(2) that the charge had no direct connection with the suppression of the
slave trade, the slaves not being “ captured negroes,” but domes­
tic slaves who had sought protection at the agency from cruelty,
or who had claimed their liberty under the Treaty of 1873 with
the Maskat Government.
191. The Government of India replied as follows to the Secretary of State's
despatch referred to above -
External A., May 1889, Nos. 162-169.
2, In reply, we have the honour to encloset a letter from the Political Resident in the
t No. 3S3, dated the 4th Pecemb.r i8S8, and Persian Gulf, aud to submit that, for the reasons
enclosure. which we arc about to state, the charges are not
such as the Indian tax-payer can fairly be compelled to pay. The Lords Commissioners
of Her Majesty's Treasury considered that the expenditure is proporly classed as contingent
expenditure of the Agency, and for this reason, and because it has hitherto been debited to
India, they consider that it ought not in future to be borne by Imperial funds. As regards
the argument based on past procedure, we desire to explain that the procedure hitherto
followed has been allowed to continue so long undisturbed because the fact of the charges
being debited to Indian revenues was not brought to our notice, and it has only been
brought to our notice now through the action of our Comptroller of India Treasuries, taken
in consequence of certain orders issued by us in 1S84 in connection with the suppression
of the slave trade. Your Lordship will observe from the enclosure to this despatch that
the charges in question are entirely the outcome of the Treaty of the 14th April 1873