'Précis on slave trade in the Gulf of Oman and the Persian Gulf, 1873-1905 (With a Retrospect into previous history from 1852) By J A Saldanha BA, LL B' [‎35] (43/126)

35
the requirements of Act XXX of 1852. The Bombay Government still desired
to recommend the course suggested in 1888 (paragraph 17 above), and said
that the principle that the sea-board Native States of India in subordinate
a nance with Her Majesty should for the purposes of maritime police and external
re ations be treated as a part of Her Majesty's Indian empire appears worthy of
consideration." J
21. Attention was invited by the Bombay Government to the correspondence
Secret e ., October 1890, n «s. 1 -14 (Nos 1 -4). rec ^ ved from the India Office The department of the British Government to which the Government of India reported between 1858 and 1947. The successor to the Court of Directors. regarding a
desire expressed by the German Govern
ment to extend their protection and jurisdiction over such subjects of Indian
Native States as were not registered at the British Consulate at Zanzibar and
were to be found in the German protected territories in East Africa. In this
correspondence Pvutch subjects were taken as an instance. Lord Cross's view
was that the subjects of any British Indian protected State were under the pro
tection of the British Government when out of India ! The Bombay Govern
ment were of opinion that the provisions of General Act rendered an alteration of
Act X of 1841 necessary ; they pointed out that the resemblance of the Kutch
•Red with sun and moon. flag* to the Turkish, Egyptian and Arab
ensigns would especially invite visitation of
Kutch vessels, and that " in order to obtain fair consideration, Kutch vessels mast
hoist the British ensign, and consequently the removal of legal difficulties to that
course is the first step to be taken."
22. In letter No. 3 I 44t dated the 14th May 1892, the Bombay Government
enquired whether, apart from legislation, sanction could not be given to a form
of license to carry the British flag. And with their No. 3372, dated the 23rd
May 1892, Bombay Government forwarded a letter (with enclosure) from the
Political Agent A mid-ranking political representative (equivalent to a Consul) from the diplomatic corps of the Government of India or one of its subordinate provincial governments, in charge of a Political Agency. , Kutch, regarding proposals by the Kutch Darbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). in respect to—
(i) the alteration of the Kutch flag ;
(ii) amendations of, or additions to, the forms previously used by ship
owners.
Further reports from Kutch were forwarded with the Bombay Government
letter No. 3634, dated the 4th June 1892, explaining that it was only intended to
alter the Kutch flag so as to prevent its being mistaken for the Turkish.
23. The views of the Government of India were expressed in Foreign De-
Secret e „ March 1893, Nos. 317-245. Pfrtment letter No. 20S3.E, dated 7th
November 1892 :—
Two distinct questions appear to arise for decision, viz, :—
(i) whether subjects of a Native State in India are proteges " of the protecting
power within the meaning of Article XXXII of the General Act of the
Brussels Conference, in which case permission to fly the British flag can,
under that article, be granted to vessels of such Native States ; and
(ii) whether our own Municipal Law, as it at present stands, enables us to grant
this permission, and if not, what alteration of it is required for the purpose.
On the first of these points I am to say that the Government of India are advised that
subjects of Native States in India can be held to be 14 protected persons for the purposes of
the General Act."
As regards the second question, I am to remark that there does not appear to be any
statutory authority enabling the Government of India to grant permission to fly the British
flag in ships, which are not British ships or by persons who are not British subjects, except
under the provisions of Act X of 1841, as amended by subsequent enactments, but neither
does there appear to be any authoritative prohibition of such grants ; and 1 am to add that
the question of regulating such grants by the introduction of a clause in the pending
Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken into consideration. Meantime there does not seem
to be any objection to the grant of such permission in the case of vessels owned by subjects
of Native State to which the privileges of a British ship have been, or may hereafter be,
granted under the provisions of the Act above mentioned.
There is no objection to the proposed alteration of the Kutch flag ; but it should be
pointed out to the Darbar A public or private audience held by a high-ranking British colonial representative (e.g. Viceroy, Governor-General, or member of the British royal family). that the benefits of the General Act can only be claimed by vessels
which not only are authorised to fly the British flag, but also comply strictly with the provi
sions of the Act, and that the suggested modifications ot those provisions are consequently
inadmissible.