سياسي رقم ٢٢١ لسنة ١٨٧٤، تحيل نسخة من إحدى رسائل القائم بأعمال الوكيل السياسي والقنصل العام في زنجبار بخصوص وضع "المواطنين الهنود"، بالإضافة إلى نسخة من الرد [و‎‎٥‎٨‎٠] (٢٤/١١)

were carried on under the French flag than to raise a question of iurisd : ction.
On the latter point, about which personally I felt no doubt, I certainly wished
to be lortmed by the opinion of Government, but I considered it subordinate to
the mam one. I was in hopes that the French Government might be induced
to issue instructions to their authorities at Nossibe and Mayotte to be cautious
m allowing any seaman to be shipped under the French flag, unless it were
clearly proved that he was a freeman, and to exercise, moreover, strict supervi
sion over natives of India in respect to trafficking in slaves, to which it is
known they are prone.
32. As, however, Mr. Hobhouse is of opinion that I should have been
justified in trying the Indian, I would wish to be allowed to offer a further
explanation of the affair. Viewing the question as I remarked above more as a
political than a legal one, I did not forward to Government a copy of the
official letter addressed to me by the Acting French Consul. I now transmit
Dated 6th January 1874 tllis document as an accompaniment to this despatch,
and I think that it will be at once conceded that
although M. Guillois may have denied the French nationality of the Indian he
was by no means prepared to allow me jurisdiction over the parties concerned.
If the Indian had known of my intention to arrest him, he would at once have
taken refuge on board his dhow, or at the French Consulate. Could I under
these circumstances have been justified in removing him from under the aegis
of the French flag? There are do facts in modern history more clearly estab
lished than the reluctance with which France has ever entered into negotiation
for the suppression of the slave-trade and the readiness with which she has
always shaken off any obligations she may have incurred, as soon as opportunity
offered. Her refusal to ratify the quintuple Treaty, her action with regard to
the Treaties of 1831 and 1833, and the silent manner in which she abrogated
that of 1845, are sufficient proofs of this, and her efforts have resulted in ren
dering our attempts to verify her flag almost nugatory. If, then, she has so
strenuously resisted the right of visitation and search on the open sea, is it
probable that in a foreign port, where one of her own representatives resides,
she would have permitted, without a protest, the entry of my peons on board a
vessel, protected by her flag, and duly furnished with papers, issued by her own
authorities ? It must be remembered also that the Negro was regularly borne as
a seaman upon the dhow’s articles, and that if I had convicted the master, his
emancipation would necessarily follow. Had I possibly any power to cancel or
alter such a document as foreign articles of agreement between a master and
his crew ?
33. I also, with due submission, think that M. Guillois acted wrongly
in not taking proceedings against the Indian on the score of slave-holding.
The French Consul holds extra-territorial jurisdiction at Zanzibar, and ia
authorized to take cognizance of all offences committed here. It is true the
Indian was not a French subject, but he was under the French flag, and his
boat was virtually French territory, as the local authorities could not interfere
in any way with it. I submit, therefore, that he wxmld have been as fully justi
fied in dealing with the Indian as a French official would have been in a similar
case occurring at Marseilles. On the whole of this question, however, I would
b e ^ to refer Government to Wheaton’s International Law, edition of Lawrence,
1864, Chapter II., and especially pages 256 el seq.
34. To have received the acknowledgment of the Government of India
in this matter has been a source of great gratification to me. I feel convinced
that if I had adonted a different course, I must either have eventually retreated
from my position^ and thus weakened my influence at the outset of my residence
at Zanzibar or have ultimately placed the Government in a position of some
embarrassment, a result which would, I feel confident, have ensued from my
pressing the matter at all risks.
35 In conclusion, whilst fully of opinion that, in the case of natives of
India domiciled or otherwise residing here under such conditions, as do not
amount to naturalization, it is very desiyable that the propositions laid down by
7