Page 256 - Gulf Precis (III)_Neat

8o
No. 79-E., dated Fort William, 23rd January 1885.
From—W.^Lbb-Warn*n, Esq., Officiating Undcr-Sccrctary to the Government of India, Foreign
To—The Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay.
I I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letters noted in the margin regardin'*
No. 6535, dated 5th December 1S84. the capture by H. M. S. Philomel of two slave
,. 6700 ,, 12th „ „ dhows off the Oman Coast and the subsequent
.. 7000 „ 30th „ „ disposal of the slaves after their arrival at
Aden.
2. In regard to the sum of Rs. 2.2S8-S-6 expended by the Political Resident at Aden
To the Government of Bombay, No. 1906-P., on account cf these slaves, I am to inquire with
dated 22nd August 1873- reference to previous correspondence, ending
I with the endorsement from this office cited in the margin, whether any steps are being
taken by the Government of Bombay to recover the charges incurred from * the Home
Treasury.
1
(iil) Question of the trial of a case of a slaver captured by the Political Agent
: Maskat, 1896. 1
173. In May 1896 Lieutenant Beville, Political Agent, Maskat, received
information to the effect that a vessel,
External A., Angujt 1896, Nos. 47’53.
hailing from Sur within the dominions of
the Sultan of Maskat and containing slaves was in the vicinity of Maskat. There
being no vessel of war upon the station and considering that the last paragraph of
section 3 of Viet. 36 and 37, Chapter 88, read with Article I of the Treaty of
1873 with the Sultan of Maskat, empowered them as a military officer to do so,
he proceeded to the sea in his boat and effected capture of the vessel with 27
slaves.
Four slave dealers and the crew found on the vessel, who were natives
of Sur, were handed over to the Sultan, by whom they were imprisoned after
enquiry.
174. The question raised then was whether Lieutenant Beville having cap­
tured the slavers could exercise jurisdic­
External A., July 1897, Nos. 315*233*
tion for the trial and condemnation of the
vessel, crew and slaves taken.
175. The Government of India were of opinion that Lieutenant Beville could
not try the case and instructed the Resident at Bushire to consult the Appellate
Court as to the course to be pursued.
176. The Registrar of the Admiralty Division, Royal Courts of Justice,
London, advised the Political Agent (letter, dated 14th July 1896) as follows
M It docs not seem to be a case which the Consular Court of Maskat or any other of the
so-called East African Courts has authority to try, the jurisdiction of those Courts being
limited by section 3 (36 and 37 Viet., Chapter 59) of the Slave Trade (East African
Courts) Act, 1873, to vessel seized by the Commander or officer of any of Her Majesty's
ships. If that be so, I am afraid that the case could only be tried under section 5 of the Act,
36 and 37 Viet., Chapter 88) in some Court of Admiralty within British territory. The
nearest and most accessible court would, I suppose, be the Court at Bombay.
The Registrar also raised the question of the legality of the seizure.
176. The questions were then referred by Lieutenant Beville for the opinion
of the Advocate General, Bombay. His opinion is quoted below :—
Opinion by the Advocate General, Bombay.
With reference to the case submitted for my opinion as to the seizure by the Political
Agent at Maskat of a vessel containing slaves, I am of opinion as follows
I think it is extremely doubtful if the seizure was legal. The vessel seized came from
Sur, a place within the dominions of the Sultan of Maskat, and prtmd Jacte s'v0“.
appear to be a vessel of a foreign State within the meaning of those words, as denned by e
Slave Trade Act, 1873, section 2, i.e., “ a vessel which is justly entitled to claim the pro fic­
tion of the flag of a foreign State, or which would be so entitled if she did not lose s