Page 210 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

34

The Act was to come into force on the 2nd March 1892. It came into force
actually on 2nd April 1892. The French Government had made certain reserva­
tions with regard to the articles conceding the right of search of vessels, which are
the most effectively important part of the Act so far as regards the provisions for
the suppression of the sea-borne Slave Trade.
15. Forms were prescribed by the Government of India under the Act in
Secret e., March *693. Noj. 817-345 (Noa. their letters to the Governments of Bombay,
»«*•*«). Madras, Bengal and Burma (Nos. 1481-E.
and 1482-E., dated 9th August 1892 for :__
(1) License to carry the British flag granted under Article XXXII.
(2) List of crew granted under Article XXXV.
(3) List of negro passengers granted under Article XXXVI.

(ill) Right of vessels of Native States in India to fly the British flag under the opera­
tions of the Brussels Act.
16. The above question was first raised in 1888, and was finally determined
after the Brussels Act came into force.
17. In 1888, in their letter No. 1588, dated the 2nd March 1888, the Bombay
Government addressed the Government of
Internal A., July 1883, No*. 393*94-
India on the subject of the rights and obli­
gations of the owners and crews of vessels trading with foreign countries, who
are subjects of Native States in subordinate alliance with Her Majesty ; and
made the following suggestions :—
(1) " The most obvious solution of the difficulty seems to be distinct recognition of
vessels, belonging to the subjects of the maritime or other States in subordinate alliance
with Her Majesty, and plying beyond the local limits of those States, as British vessels
which must be registered at a British post ” (paragraph 7).
(2) " In order to enable the Indian Government to provide Indian ships of Native
States with the requisite safeguards, it ought to be empowered to issue certificates, such as
are issued under Her Majesty’s Order in Council at Zanzibar, to the owners of such ships,
and this would require fresh legislation ” (paragraph 8).
18. The Government of India’s reply (No. 2819-I., dated the nth July 18S8)
pointed out that the questions discussed appeared to have been raised only in
connection with Kutch ships and Kutch subjects and added “ until His Highness
the Rao requests that Kutch vessels may be brought under British Indian law,
it would seem to the Government of India undesirable to move in the matter of
their registration as to take measures with a view to bringing the crews under
British jurisdiction.”
19. In Government of India’s No. io64*E., dated the 21st May 1891, the
Bombay Government was asked for their
Internal A., June >891, Nos. lS-ig.
views as to the steps to be taken to carry
out the provisions of the General Act of the Brussels Conference. The Bombay
Government’s reply No. 5304, dated the
External A., October 1891, Nos. 18-29.
oth July 1891, referred to the 1888 cor­
respondence and expressed an opinion “ that under Act 32 of the General Act
the British Government has no power to authorise a Kutch vessel to carry the
British flag, since the Kutch owner is not a protected person in the diplomatic
sense intended by the Act.”
20. It was pointed out that the Government of India’s letter of the 10th July
1888 contended the Kutch vessels pos­
Intcroal A., July 1888, Nos. 43-94 (No. 94).
sessed and independent character, and
reference was also made to its letter No. 3816-I., dated the 25th September
1888, on the subject of an application by Kutch owners for a certificate of
naturalisation. In that letter it was suggested that the applicants might be told
that they were at liberty to avail themselves of the provisions of Section 24 of
Act X of 1841, by giving the command of their vessel to a subject of Her
Majesty, and that they might obtain letters of naturalisation by complying with