Dri-fisia and To- 
 
 i ci 
 
 T\(l.a_ 
 
 Si ZK \J ■i.r'4 
 
 J 
 
 . . . MEMORIALS . . . 
 
 OF THE 
 
 anb Soreigti ^flntuSkpcrg Socictg, 
 
 AND OTHER 
 
 Documents connccteb mitfj Slauerg anb tf?e Stapc= 
 Crabe tn tl?e Sultanate of San3tl>ar, 
 
 TOGETHER WITH 
 
 A BRIEF ACCOUNT OF THE RESULTS OF GRANTING 
 COMPENSATION TO THE WEST INDIAN SLAVE-OWNERS, 
 AND THE CONTINUATION OF SLAVERY UNDER THE NAME 
 
 OF “APPRENTICESHIP.” 
 
 
 XonOon: 
 
 -Kritisl) aiii) /oicicjii ,!liiU=8fttocii) Socicti), 
 
 5 5, NEW BROAE STREET, E.O. 
 
CONTENTS. ' 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Explanatory Note .. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... i 
 
 Memorial from the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society to 
 
 the Marquis OF Salisbury ... ... ... ... ... ... 2 
 
 Acknowledgment ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 4 
 
 Further Memorial from the Society 
 I^eply ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 6 
 
 Resolution of Committee of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery 
 
 Society, with reference to Slavery in the Zanzibar Sultanate ... 6 
 
 Resolution of the Committee of the Church Missionary Society ... 6 
 
 ^‘Africa, No. 7 (1896)”—Criticisms by Charles H. Allen, Secretary 7 
 Chronological List of Treaties, Laws, and other matters, with respect 
 
 to Slavery and the Slave-trade in Zanzibar ... ... ... ... 13 
 
 Slavery in the Zanzibar Sultanate. By J. Eastoe Teall, Assistant- 
 
 Secretary ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 14 
 
 A Brief Account of the Results of granting Compensation to the 
 West Indian Slave-holders, and the Continuation of Slavery 
 under the name of “ Apprenticeship ” ... ... ... ... 19 
 
 m 
 
lEyplanator^ 1Rote. 
 
 At the request of many gentlemen eminent in Anti-Slavery work, 
 the following papers have been compiled for presentation to members 
 of Parliament, ministers of religion, and the public generally, in order 
 that they may understand how the question of Slavery in the British 
 Protectorate of Zanzibar now stands. 
 
 Pledges have been given by two successive Ministries that abolition 
 of the legal status of Slavery should be declared in the Sultanate of 
 Zanzibar. Sir Edward Grey, representing the Liberal Ministry, said, 
 in the House of Commons, in March, 1895, that “the thing had got to 
 be done,” and the Right Hon. G. N. CURZON, representing the Con¬ 
 servative and Unionist Ministry, stated, in March, 1896, that Mr. 
 Hardinge, the Consul-General, would return to Zanzibar in the 
 autumn with instructions to carry out the abolition of Slavery. Neither 
 of these pledges has been fulfilled, and the British and Foreign 
 Anti-Slavery Society appeals to the nation generally to support the 
 resolution passed by its Committee on December i8th, 1896, that any 
 measure short of immediate abolition would meet with the strenuous 
 opposition of the Society. 
 
 It ought not to be necessary to require the pressure of public 
 opinion to carry out a pledge made nearly twelve months ago ; but if 
 such pressure is required, the nation will, as in former times, insist upon 
 putting an end to the humiliation of allowing Slavery to exist in 
 countries virtually under British rule. 
 
 The present being the sixtieth year of Queen Victoria’s long and 
 glorious reign would appear to be specially fitted to see the abolition of 
 Slavery in all Her Majesty’s territories, whether so-called Protectorates 
 or under Chartered Companies. No more gracious act could signalise 
 such an anniversary than the blotting from the escutcheon of England 
 of every mark left by the compromise with Slavery. 
 
 January \st^ 1897. 
 
Slapcug in tl?c Britisl) protectorate of 3an3tt)ar. 
 
 Assumption of the 
 Protectorate by Great 
 Britain, 1890. 
 
 Slave-trade Treaty 
 with Zanzibar, 1873 
 
 Deputation from the 
 Society to Seyyid 
 Barghash, 1875. 
 
 Earl Granville 
 urges Abolition in 
 1884. 
 
 MEMORIAL FROM THE BRITISH AND FOREIGN ANTI¬ 
 SLAVERY SOCIETY, Augtist 19///, 1896. 
 
 To THE Right Hon. The Marquis of Salisbury, K.G., Etc., Etc., Her 
 Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
 
 My Lord, —I am directed by the Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Anti-Slavery Society to lay before your Lordship the following statement 
 of their views respecting Slavery in the East Africa Protectorate, more 
 especially in the Islands of Zanzibar and Pemba, and the methods which they 
 consider might be safely adopted for the abolition of the legal status of 
 Slavery, with the least disturbance to the Arab and Slave populations. 
 
 I am desired to remind your Lordship of the fact that the Protectorate 
 over the dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar was assumed by the British 
 Government in 1890, and that long before that date the British and 
 Foreign Anti-Slavery Society had steadily used all the means at its 
 command for procuring the abolition of the status of Slavery by the Sultan, 
 a measure which had formerly been successfully applied, not only throughout 
 the Indian Empire, but at a later date (by Ministries of which your Lordship 
 was a member) both on the Gold Coast of Africa and in the Island of 
 Cyprus. 
 
 The popular feelings of indignation aroused by the revelations of Dr. 
 Livingstone as to the horrors of the Slave-trade, enabled the Anti-Slavery 
 Society to procure the appointment of a Parliamentary Committee. This 
 resulted in the (now historic) mission of Sir Bartle Frere to East Africa 
 in 1872-3, and the subsequent signing of a treaty by the Sultan, which 
 abolished the Slave-trade by sea. 
 
 In 1875, during a visit of the Sultan, Seyyid Barghash, to England, a 
 Deputation from the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society waited 
 upon His Highness with the view of urging him to abolish Slavery through¬ 
 out his dominions, as the only method by which the Slave-trade could be 
 extinguished, and the Sultan, in 1876, took a farther step by prohibiting 
 the Slave-trade on the mainland. This, however, had no perceptible effect 
 upon the transport of human merchandise, either by land or by sea, for in 
 1884, Her Majesty’s Agent and Consul-General at Zanzibar (Sir John Kirk) 
 expressed to Earl Granville his belief “that the non-recognition of 
 Slavery, as a status known to the law, was essential to prosperity in Pemba.” 
 
 Mr. ViLLiERS Lister, by direction of Earl Granville, in his reply, wrote 
 as follows ;— 
 
 “ It is evident that the fear of Slavery entertained by the 
 negroes will prevent any free influx of labour into the island, so 
 long as the state of Slavery exists ; and I am to instruct you to 
 lose no fitting opportunity of bringing before the Sultan the 
 advantages which might accrue to the island were he to decree 
 the abolition of Slavery.” 
 
 It must be clear that if the British Government considered that the 
 abolition of the status of Slavery was essential to prosperity in the dominions 
 of the Sultan, so long ago as 1884, when he was the actual ruler, the con¬ 
 tinuance of Slavery for a space of six years, up to the present time, since the 
 
3 
 
 British Government assumed the Protectorate of Zanzibar, is in direct 
 variance with the opinions expressed by Sir JoH.v Kirk and the Foreign 
 Secretary of that day. This glaring inconsistency has naturally aroused 
 considerable indignation in the minds of the British public. 
 
 It is a cause of much satisfaction to the Society to find that the present 
 Government has pledged itself to carry out the abolition of the status of 
 Slavery in Zanzibar and Pemba, a policy to which the late Government stood 
 committed, and that just before the rising of Parliament this pledge was 
 renewed in an answer to a question put by Mr. Joseph A. Pease, M.P. a 
 Member of the Committee of the Anti-Slavery Society. 
 
 Abolition of the Legal Status of Slavery. 
 
 What the Society understands by the phrase ‘‘Abolition of the legal status 
 of Slavery ” will appear from the following brief review of some of the cases 
 in which this method has been successfully applied :— 
 
 Straits Settlements. —So far back as 1843 the meaning of this term 
 was explained in an Official Proclamation issued by the Governor-General 
 in Council in which occurs the following statement : — 
 
 “ It is hereby declared and enacted that in no part of the Straits 
 Settlements shall the status of Slavery be recognised as existing 
 by law, and all Courts and officers of law are hereby prohibited 
 from enforcing any claims founded on any supposed rights of 
 masters in regard to Slaves within the settlements aforesaid, and 
 are enjoined to afford protection to all persons against whom any 
 supposed rights of Slavery are attempted to be enforced.” 
 
 British India. —In the same year a similar Act was applied to the 
 territories of the East India Company, the essential clause of which 
 declared:— 
 
 “ And it is hereby declared and enacted that no rights arising 
 out of an alleged property in the person and services of another 
 as a Slave shall be enforced by any civil or criminal court, or 
 magistrate within the territories of the East India Company.” 
 (Paragraph 2.) 
 
 By this simple process, and without any disturbance. Slavery came to an 
 end throughout British India. 
 
 Gold Coast of Africa. —In 1874 Governor Strachan delivered a 
 message of the Queen on Slavery and the Slave-trade on the Gold Coast to 
 the Chiefs, announcing the terms under which she took them under her 
 protection, and which contained the following important statement :— 
 
 “ The Queen does not desire to take any of your people from 
 you ; those of them who like to work for, and with, and to assist 
 you, can remain with you. If they are happy, and continue to 
 live with you on the same terms as now, no change will be forced 
 upon you ; but any person who does not desire to live with you 
 on those terms can leave, and will not be compelled by any court, 
 British or native, to return to you.” 
 
 Cyprus. —In 1879, when the Island of Cyprus (which still forms part of 
 the Ottoman Empire) was placed under the administration of Great Britain, 
 under agreement with Turkey, an Ordinance was issued by the High 
 Commissioner, “ to remove doubts as to the legal abolition of involuntary 
 servitude in Cyprus, and to declare the law in respect thereto,” one clause of 
 which runs :— 
 
 “ No rights arising out of an alleged property in the person 
 and services of another as a Slave shall be enforced by any civil 
 or criminal court, or other authority whatsoever within this 
 Island.” 
 
 Pledge given by Her 
 Majesty’s Govern¬ 
 ment, 1895 and 1896. 
 
 Precedents for 
 THE Abolition of 
 THE Legal Status 
 OF Slavery :— 
 
 Straits Settlements, 
 
 1843- 
 
 British India, Act V. 
 of 1843. 
 
 Gold Coast of Africa, 
 Proclamation 1874. 
 
 Cyprus. Ordinance 
 1879, Clause II. 
 
4 
 
 These examples of the process by which abolition was procured without 
 disturbance by the British Government, in countries where there was a 
 large element of Muhammedan population, ought to allay any official anxiety 
 that may be felt as to what would happen if the legal status of Slavery were 
 peremptorily abolished in Zanzibar and Pemba, or any other British 
 Protectorate in which Slavery still exists. 
 
 Compensation and 
 
 Apprenticeship 
 
 Inadmissible. 
 
 Any Compemalion 
 •would go to Mort¬ 
 gagees. 
 
 *5 Geo. IV., c. 113. 
 6 & 7 Viet, c. 98. 
 
 Sultan’s Proclama¬ 
 tion, 1890, prohibits 
 traffic in Slaves. 
 
 Any System of 
 Apprenticeship would 
 be strenuously 
 opposed by the Anti- 
 Slavery Society. 
 
 Compp:nsation and Apprenticeship Inadmissihle. 
 
 The Committee having reason to fear that some form of compensation to 
 Slaveholders in the Islands may be contemplated, desire to call your 
 Lordship’s attention to the fact that in none of the cases above cited was 
 there any recognition of the right to compensation to the holders of Slaves, 
 and that in Zanzibar and Pemba it would be most unjust to lay any such 
 burden upon the shoulders of the British taxpayer, seeing that almost 
 all the Slaves in that territory have been illegally held in bondage since the 
 Sultan signed the Treaty of 1873. 
 
 Moreover, any sum of money voted as compensation would be claimed by 
 the mortgagees of the estates on which the Slaves are employed, as happened 
 in the West Indies in 1834. In all advances made to the Arabs by the 
 British Indians, who act as bankers in such cases, the security can only consist 
 of the shambas and the crops, seeing that British law expressly forbids an 
 advance by British subjects on Slaves.*-'^ Nor could these Slaves be legally 
 turned into an available asset were the mortgage foreclosed, seeing that under 
 the Sultan’s proclamation of August i, 1890, it is enacted :— 
 
 “We absolutely prohibit, from this date, all exchange, sale, 
 or purchase of Slaves, domestic or otherwise. There shall be no 
 more traffic whatever in Slaves of any description. Any houses 
 heretofore kept for traffic in domestic Slaves by Slave brokers, 
 shall be for ever closed, and any person found acting as a broker 
 for the exchange or sale of Slaves shall be liable under our orders 
 to severe punishment, and to be deported from our dominions. 
 Any Arab, or other of our subjects, hereafter found exchanging, 
 purchasing, obtaining, or selling domestic Slaves, shall be liable 
 under our orders to severe punishment, to deportation, and the 
 forfeiture of all his Slaves. Any house in which traffic of any 
 kind in any description of blave may take place, shall be 
 forfeited.” 
 
 Thus it is clear that the abolition of the legal status of Slavery would in 
 no way permanently lessen the security now held by the mortgagee, for there 
 can be little doubt that the crops raised by free labour would very speedily 
 increase in quantity and value, as was the case in the United States of 
 America, where free labour has proved to be far more valuable than that 
 of Slaves. 
 
 Nor could a prolongation of Slavery, with added cruelty, under the term 
 of “ apprenticeship,” be for a moment contemplated. The experience of 
 Great Britain in her West India possessions, between the years 1834 and 
 1838, when under the name of “ apprenticeship ” the horrors of Slavery were 
 increased ten-fold, ought to preclude all idea of the introduction of such a 
 system into Zanzibar, Pemba, etc., and it would certainly ensure the strenuous 
 opposition of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. 
 
 In respectfully submitting their views to the consideration of your 
 Lordship, the Committee trust that the abolition of the legal status of 
 Slavery will be carried out in the British East Africa Protectorate before 
 the end of the present year. 
 
 On behalf of the Committee, 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 Your Lordship’s faithful servant, 
 
 CHAS. H. ALLEN, Secretary. 
 British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 
 
 55, New Broad Street, London, E.C., 
 
 August 19//?, 1896. 
 
 [Reply] 
 
 Her Majesty’s Under Secretary of State eor Foreign Affairs simply 
 acknowledged the receipt of Mr. Allen’s letter of the 19th of August. 
 
5 
 
 Ifurtbcr flDemorial front tbc Britiob anb fforelGu 
 
 Bnti^Slavcri^ Societi^* 
 
 December ()th^ 1896. 
 
 To the 
 
 RIGHT HONOURABLE THE MARQUIS OF SALISBURY, K.G., 
 Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. 
 
 My Lord, 
 
 At a meeting of the Committee of the British and Foreign 
 Anti-Slavery Society, held on the 4th inst., I was directed to forward a 
 printed copy of a Memorial addressed by this Society to your Lordship in 
 August last, urging the immediate Abolition of the Status of Slavery in the 
 Sultanate of Zanzibar. 
 
 As the Committee have not been honoured with any communication on 
 the subject, and as various statements have been made in official quarters 
 respecting supposed difficulties in the way of immediate Abolition, I am 
 directed to again call your Lordship’s attention to the fact stated in the 
 enclosed Memorial, that the difficulties thus put forward have never had any 
 real existence in the numerous cases in which Great Britain has, at one 
 stroke, abolished the status of Slavery in her various Protectorates and 
 Possessions. 
 
 This Society does not share in the forebodings that have been expressed in 
 some quarters as to the “ effervescence ” and disturbance that may arise 
 should the legal status of Slavery be immediately abolished, such predictions 
 having always been raised whenever the question of Abolition was discussed, 
 though in no case justified by the result. 
 
 When the late Major-General Rigbt insisted upon the British-Indian 
 subjects in Zanzibar emancipating every Slave they possessed (7,000 to 8,000) 
 no evil results followed.* The Society, therefore, cannot but feel sure that 
 what a British Consul could carry out on his own responsibility, nearly forty 
 years ago. Her Majesty’s Government, which now controls the administration 
 of the Sultanate by a large staff of British officials, might certainly carry out 
 without fearing any insurrectionary movement on the part of a small Arab 
 community, which has for some years enjoyed the protection afforded by 
 Great Britain. 
 
 The Committee would respectfully call your Lordship’s attention to the 
 fact that ever since Sir John Kirk suggested to Earl Granville the abolition 
 of the legal status of Slavery in 1884, and still more markedly since England 
 assumed the Protectorate in 1890, the Slave owners have had the question of 
 Abolition continually before them, and have been expecting its accomplish¬ 
 ment long before the present time. Therefore, if Abolition were declared 
 to-morrow, it could in no way be truthfully said to be “sudden.” 
 
 The recent abolition of Slavery in Madagascar by a stroke of the pen, on 
 the part of the French Government, and the equanimity with which so 
 sudden a measure was received, appears to the Committee to be an example 
 that cannot be lost sight of, and should, in their opinion, point to abolition 
 without further delay in every British Protectorate. 
 
 It would be humiliating to this nation, which has always prided itself 
 upon taking the lead in all anti-Slavery questions, if it were to find itself 
 placed in a secondary position by the swift and effective policy of France in 
 regard to emancipation in Madagascar. 
 
 On behalf of the Committee, 
 
 I have the honour to be. 
 
 Your Lordship’s faithful servant, 
 
 CHAS. H. ALLEN, 
 
 Secretary. 
 
 55, New Broad Street, London, E.C. 
 
 * Vide Report of 
 R lyal Comn.ission 
 on Fugitive Slaves, 
 Minutes of Evidence, 
 nth March, 1876, 
 page 14. 
 
6 
 
 [Reply] 
 
 Foreign Office, 
 
 December i8//z, 1896. 
 
 Sir, —I am directed by the Marquess of Salisbury to acknowledge 
 the receipt of your letter respecting the proposed Abolition of the Status 
 of Slavery in Zanzibar, and I am to inform you that Her Majesty’s Govern¬ 
 ment are giving the matter their most careful consideration, but that they 
 will not be in a position to make any definite announcement on the subject 
 before the opening of Parliament. 
 
 I am, Sir, 
 
 Your most obedient, humble Servant, 
 
 F. H. VILLIERS. 
 
 The Secretary to the Anti-Slavery Society, 
 
 55, New Broad Street, E.C. 
 
 IResoIution of tbe Committee of tbe Brittsb anb 
 Iforeion Bnti^Slaver^ Society 
 
 SLAVERY IN THE SULTANATE OF ZANZIBAR. 
 
 At a Special Meeting of the Committee of the British 
 AND Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, held at the offices, on 
 December i8th, 1896, Arthur Albright, Esq.,^^^, of Bir¬ 
 mingham, in the chair, and at which the Right Rev. the 
 Bishop of Eastern Equatorial Africa (Bishop Tucker) was 
 present as a visitor : It was, on the motion of Mr. Francis 
 Reckitt, J.P., seconded by Mr. W. W. Baynes, J.P.„ 
 Resolved unanimously^ 
 
 “That any measure short of the immediate Abolition 
 of the Legal Status of Slavery in the entire Sultanate of 
 Zanzibar, will meet with the strenuous opposition of the 
 British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society.” 
 
 IRceolution of tbe Committee of tbe Cburcb flDissionar^ 
 Societi?, belb E)ecember 15tb, 1896 
 
 Resolved —“ That in the opinion of this Committee, the time has fully 
 arrived to give effect to the long and definite promise of Her Majesty’s 
 Government to abolish the Status of Slavery in the dominions of the 
 Sultan of Zanzibar, including Mombasa, and all the country within 
 the ten-mile limit. They would earnestly and respectfully press upon 
 Her Majesty’s Government the urgent necessity for prompt and resolute 
 action in the matter.” 
 
7 
 
 ^^afnca/' IRo, 7 (1896).* 
 
 {^Presented to Parliament by Command of Her Majesty^ August^ 1896.) 
 
 Criticisms by CHARLES H. ALLEN, Secretary of the British and 
 
 Foreign Anti-Slavery Society. 
 
 The above Official Correspondence, although announced as ^'•presented to 
 Parliament in August^ 1896,” was not issued to the public until September, 
 long after Parliament had risen, and yet we find that some of the longest 
 and most important despatches were written in February, March, and April, 
 1895. During the past two years or more a great agitation against the 
 continuance of Slavery under British protection in Zanzibar has been 
 carried on in the United Kingdom, to which both the last and the present 
 Government has been constrained to bow, and the country now awaits with 
 impatience the carrying out of the promises made in the House of Commons, 
 first by Sir Edward Grey, and subsequently by Mr. Curzon. 
 
 Yet what do we find in the Official Correspondence that has been so 
 long kept out of the public view, and is now only published when it is 
 impossible to bring the subject before Parliament until next year ? In 
 a few words, we may say that many of the arguments advanced in Africa^ 
 No. 7, contain such an unblushing defence of Slavery that we are carried 
 back in thought to the anti-abolition days, before Slavery was abolished 
 in the West Indies and other British Possessions, and to that later time 
 when Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe exposed and denounced Slavery in the 
 Southern States of North America. 
 
 We are glad to find, however, that, although some of these documents have 
 been pigeon-holed for nearly eighteen months in the Foreign Office, their 
 contents have been well known to the two Governments that have been in 
 power during that time, and that, in spite of the sophistry and Cassandra-like 
 predictions which they contain, they have not prevented the Under¬ 
 secretaries for Foreign Affairs, under the rule of Lords Rosebery and 
 Salisbury, from giving a pledge to the country that the legal status of 
 Slavery should be abolished in Zanzibar. 
 
 Thus it is clear that the elaborate arguments, sent home for the indefinite 
 postponement of abolition, have not had the effect contemplated by those 
 who advocate the continuance of Zanzibar Slavery, as the Government has by 
 its latest pronouncement entirely ignored the recommendations in favour of 
 allowing the present state of affairs to continue. 
 
 It is, therefore, unnecessary for us to give more than a sketch of the 
 correspondence that has taken place, together with a short criticism on some 
 of the proposals that we think may be useful to those who wish to under¬ 
 stand both sides of the Slavery question. 
 
 The views of the Anti-Slavery Society on this point will be found on 
 another page of this Statement, in a letter addressed to Lord Salisbury, on 
 August 19th, before the Blue Book now under notice was issued to the 
 public, and before the revolution that took place in Zanzibar, after tbe sudden 
 death of the late Sultan. The suppression of that audacious defiance of 
 Great Britain in less than one hour, by the small naval force that happened 
 to be in those waters, ought to be an object-lesson to those highly-placed 
 
 Official 
 
 Despatches 
 
 criticised. 
 
 Official 
 defence of 
 Slavery. 
 
 Abolition 
 pledges by 
 two successive 
 Governments. 
 
 Rapid Sup¬ 
 pression of 
 late Insur¬ 
 rection. 
 
 ’London : Eyre & Spottiswoode. Price SJd. ; and may be obtained through any bookseller. 
 
8 
 
 Harem 
 Slavery more 
 easy to deal 
 with even 
 than Planta¬ 
 tion Slavery. 
 
 Freed Slaves 
 can remain if 
 they wish 
 without 
 wages. 
 
 Mr. Har- 
 
 DINGE 
 
 addresses the 
 Sultan in 
 favour of 
 Abolition. 
 
 officials who appear to be in dread of a general Arab war, and talk wildly of 
 the Arabs, “ if really driven to bay, being determined to die in defence of 
 their rights and those of their children,” and that ” they would perish fight¬ 
 ing over their Slaves ! ” (Page 6.) 
 
 To the ordinary observer it would appear that an excellent opportunity 
 was lost, when a fresh puppet Sultan was appointed, of giving him notice 
 that if he were placed upon the throne he would be required at the earliest 
 possible date to issue an edict, abolishing the legal status of Slavery through¬ 
 out his dominions. 
 
 Mr. HARDINGE to the EARL OF KIMBERLEY, 
 
 March 26th, 1895. 
 
 The chief reason against abolition brought forward in this despatch is that 
 if the Arabs were compelled to give up all their harem Slaves it would create an 
 amount of irritation that might be highly dangerous. No doubt this would 
 be quite true, only that there would be no compulsion in the case of abolition 
 of legal status —a point that is but partially understood in England, and 
 apparently not at all in Zanzibar. The law would not pronounce a hard 
 and fast edict of emancipation, and make it illegal for any Slaves to remain 
 in a harem ; it would simply declare that Slavery is an institution unknown 
 to the law, and, as was said in the Indian Act of 1843 : ” No rights arising 
 out of an alleged property in the person and services of another, as Slave, 
 shall be enforced by any civil or crhninal cotcrt, or magistrate,^'' etc. And, 
 again, in the Gold Coast Proclamation, 1874 : ” The Queen does not desire 
 to take any of your people away from you ; those of them who like to work 
 for and with, and to assist you, can remain with you. If they are happy, 
 and continue to live with you on the same terms as now, no change will 
 be forced upon you ; but any person who does not desire to live with you 
 on those terms can leave, and will not be compelled by any Court, British 
 or native, to return to youi' 
 
 Thus those women Slaves who had become accustomed to harem life and, 
 owing to their being well treated and cared for, had no desire to come out 
 and claim their freedom, would be allowed to continue as they were—and no 
 doubt very large numbers would so remain. The fact, however, of their 
 having the power to go away without being compelled to return—as in the 
 case of ill-treatment—would form a very wholesome check upon masters and 
 mistresses, against the cruelties that, even officials are obliged to admit, are 
 often practised. The harem question is probably one of the least difficult of 
 the problems that have to be solved in the change from Slavery to freedom. 
 
 Mr. HARDINGE to the EARL OF KIMBERLEY, 
 
 April 2^th, 1895. 
 
 7 'his despatch describes an interview between Mr. Hardinge and the late 
 unfortunate Sultan, and gives a graphic account of the Consul-General’s 
 attempt to convince His Highness that an Anti-Slavery policy was the best 
 for Zanzibar. In reading this letter one might almost imagine that 
 Mr. Hardinge was a member of the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery 
 Society. What a pity it seems that he does nut employ the same cogent 
 arguments with our own Government ! Here is one of his arguments, which 
 is truly admirable. Addressing the Sultan, he said ” Experience seemed to 
 show that so long as Slavery tvas a legal institution in Zanzibar, the tempta- 
 tio7i to add to the Slave bopulation would prove irresistible, and would act 
 as a direct incentive to the Trade, with all its monstrous features, on the 
 mainland! 
 
 This might have been written in the offices at 55, New Broad Street ! 
 
9 
 
 Mr. JIARBINGE to the EARL OF KIMBERLEY, 
 
 April 2<^th, 1895. 
 
 This letter unfortunately tells a different tale, for General Sir Lloyd 
 Mathews appears upon the scene, and gives a suggestion for Mr. Hardinge 
 to transmit to his Government, which, if carried out, would put off abolition 
 to the Greek Calends. The proposition is this—Let all existing owners be 
 invited to free their Slaves by “ tadbir — i.e., at the death of their owners. 
 Then let the heirs of the defunct owners be indemnified by the payment to 
 them, by the State, of a head for each Slave set free. Sir Lloyd naively 
 adds, ‘‘ the capital thus acquired by the heir,yozV/i?^/ to the rent tvhich he wotild 
 be allowed to exact in fiioney, kind, or labour, from freed Slaves living on his 
 estate, would enable him to pay for labour, whilst the fact that the emancipa¬ 
 tion would be spread over a number of years, would divest it of the character 
 of a sudden and universal revolution which constitutes one of its chief dangers.” 
 To this precious scheme are to be added ‘‘ stringent laws against emigration 
 to the m.ainland, or indeed from one portion of each of the two islands to the 
 other and perhaps a paid Corvee under Government supervision,” etc. 
 In fact, the freed men would still be Slaves ! 
 
 We confess to a feeling akin to amazement when we find a former officer 
 on one of H.B.M. cruisers for the suppression of the Slave-trade in East 
 Africa, and now a Zanzibar General, with an English title, thus coolly 
 formulating a scheme for the indefinite prolongation of Slavery, and the 
 application of restrictions to freed men little better than Slavery itself. 
 
 Let us shortly examine what the adoption of this proposal would entail. 
 In the first place, the freedom of Slaves depending upon the lives of their 
 owners, no calculation as to when this event would happen could possibly be 
 made. On some shambas it might occur in one, two, or three years, whilst 
 on others it might be postponed for 30 or 40 years, and thus a mixed negro 
 population would be formed—partly Slave and partly free—and when did 
 Slave labour and free labour ever work side by side in harmony ? Never 1 
 Supposing General Mathews’ scheme had been in force a few weeks ago, what 
 would have happened ? The Sultan, a comparatively young man, suddenly 
 dies ; whether from natural causes, or assisted to his end by ways well known 
 in the east, will always remain a mystery. At his death the 30,000 Slaves 
 which had formed part of his wealth would immediately have been set free, 
 and the heirs of the dead Sultan would have claimed, from the State, an 
 indemnity of per head—amounting to the exorbitant sum of One 
 Hundred and Fifty Thousand Pounds ! No doubt, by ” the State,” the 
 British taxpayer is here meant, and he would certainly object to being made 
 thus responsible for the mis-government in Zanzibar, because if the Treaties, 
 made by Sir John Kirk with the Sultan, had been properly carried out 
 there would now be scarcely any Slaves in the Sultanate of Zanzibar. 
 
 One of Mr. Hardinge’s most recent despatches concludes with the 
 following remarkable admission :— 
 
 “ I fear I may appear to be wasting your Lordship’s time, and, so to speak, ‘ beating 
 the air,’ by piling up arguments against the Abolitionists, when abolition has already 
 been decided on in principle. But the manner in which this principle is applied maybe 
 of vital importance to the future of Zanzibar, and I should, I think, be wanting in my 
 duty, not only to your Lordship, but to the people of this country, who hav^e no one 
 but myself to plead their cause, or to appeal on their behalf to English justice, if I 
 failed, even at the eleventh hour, to put forward a single consideration which could 
 help to secure to them the most favourable terms.” 
 
 [By “ people,” Arabs appear to be intended—not Slaves.— C. H. A.] 
 
 Mr. HARDINGE, May nth, 1895. 
 
 This letter, though short, is important, for in it the Consul-General 
 maintains that the Slave is better off than the labouring classes in most 
 other countries, and also that during the four years under British proteCLion. 
 
 General Sir 
 Lloyd 
 Mathews 
 and his ex¬ 
 traordinary 
 scheme. 
 
 Indefinite 
 Prolongation 
 of Slavery. 
 
 Mr. Har¬ 
 dinge admits 
 that Abolition 
 has been 
 decided on in 
 principle. 
 
lO 
 
 Mr. Har- 
 DINGE con¬ 
 siders that 
 Slaves are 
 materially 
 better off than 
 the labouring 
 classes in 
 Europe. 
 
 Missionaries 
 said to be in 
 favour of 
 Slavery. 
 
 Dr. O’Sulli¬ 
 van, Vice- 
 Consul for 
 Pemba. 
 
 under sound English management, the revenue has risen from 9 to 14 lakhs 
 of rupees per annum ! This is a noteworthy admission—for it is “ under 
 sound English management'''' that Slaves are made to increase the revenue, 
 and to enable the puppet Sultan to be paid 0,000 per annum, and the 
 large staff of British Officials to receive their salaries. But we must give 
 Mr. Hardinge’s own words in reference to the contentment of the Slaves: 
 
 “ The second point on which I would lay stress is the moral aspect of the Slavery 
 question. Undoubtedly if the maintenance of Slavery, even if only for a few years 
 longer, entailed real suffering or hardship on the Slave population (I am not now 
 discussing the Slave-trade, which can, I think, as far as these islands are concerned, 
 be put a stop to by the measures recommended in my despatch of the 26th of 
 February last, but Mohammedan domestic Slavery), no fiscal considerations could 
 justify it. It would be our duty to say, ‘ Perish the revenue ; the prosperity of the 
 Exchequer cannot rest on the misery of the governed.’ The testimony of every 
 European resident in Zanzibar would, however, I believe, be that the Slave population 
 is, on the whole, contented, and materially a good deal better off in relation to its 
 wants than the labouring classes in most countries of Europe, so that the necessity 
 of immediate abolition is only urgent from a moral point of view, if the theoretical 
 injustice and inequality of the system of Slavery, an injustice not felt by the Slaves 
 themselves, since it is in accordance with their own religious and social conceptions, 
 is to outweigh every other interest.” 
 
 This view as to the moral question is again brought forward by the Consul- 
 General when writing subsequently to Lord Salisbury, and he encloses 
 letters from Mr. Pigott (Acting Administrator), and a number of ladies and 
 gentlemen of the Church Missionary Society, protesting against anything like 
 immediate abolition of the status of Slavery. With regard to the opinions of 
 Missionaries it must be remarked that Mr. Hardinge only accepts them 
 when they are in agreement with his own, for when, in May, 1896, he 
 forwards to Lord Salisbury the eloquent Memorial of Bishop Tucker and 
 thirteen other Missionaries, “ deprecating very earnestly any delay in 
 abolishing the legal status of Slavery within the limits of the British East 
 Africa and Zanzibar Protectorates f he coolly accuses the Bishop and Clergy 
 of Uganda of making “ sweeping assertions^ 
 
 May we not just as properly say that the letter from a lady Missionary 
 'at Mombasa to Mr. Pigott, saying that “ the effect of abolition on the Slave 
 women would be disastrous,” is also a mere “ sweeping assertion ” ? 
 
 N.B. —Bishop Tucker’s Memorial has been printed in the Times, etc., 
 and in a recent number of the Anti-Slavery Reporter. 
 
 The Blue Book concludes with a long and very interesting report from 
 Vice-Consul O’Sullivan, dated Pemba, 30th May, 1896. 
 
 It will be remembered that, at the request of the British and Foreign 
 Anti-Slavery Society, a Vice-Consul for Pemba was appointed last year, 
 and on his landing on the island he was received and welcomed by Mr. Donald 
 Mackenzie, the Society’s Special Commissioner. We give a few extracts 
 from Mr. O’Sullivan’s report, and are glad to find him saying that he 
 does “ not anticipate any serious difficulty in carrying out the provisions of 
 a decree for the abolition of SlaveryT 
 
 Extracts from Report by Mr. O' SULLIVAN upon the Island of Pemba. 
 
 The Island of Pemba is a low, irregular coralline bank, a little over forty miles 
 long, with a breadth varying from five to twelve miles. It nowhere rises to a height 
 of more than 150 feet, and it is clothed throughout with dense and perennial verdure. 
 Running parallel with its western coast is a chain of islets, some of which are of 
 considerable size and inhabited, the whole forming an archipelago. 
 
 There are three towns in Pemba Island, all located on the western seaboard, 
 namely, Chaki Chaki, situated about midway on the coast, where the island is 
 narrowest, at the extremity of a deep inlet of the sea, which terminates in a long, 
 winding, mangrove creek; Weti, which lies about ten miles to the north; and 
 Jamba’ngome, which lies about as many miles to the south of Chaki Chaki. M’Suka 
 and Fufuni are both large villages situated, respectively, at the extreme north and the 
 extreme south of the island, and scattered throughout the interior are several other 
 villages of lesser size. 
 
II 
 
 Chaki Chaki is the chief town ; it is notable chiefly as being the site of a large 
 ruined fort, which evidently is of considerable antiquity, but by whom built, whether 
 by the Portuguese or by the Mazrui Arabs, both of whom dominated Pemba at 
 different periods in times past, is uncertain. 
 
 The inhabitants of Pemba consist of Arabs, Slaves, Wa-Pemba, and British 
 Indians, plus a small number of freed Slaves. Those owe their freedom to the 
 observance by the Arabs, in times past, of that portion of the teaching of the Koran 
 which enjoins the owner of Slaves to provide for the liberation, on his death, of some 
 of them at least, for which act of benevolence he is promised an adequate reward in 
 Paradise. Of late years, however, this pious custom has been generally disregarded 
 by the Arabs. 
 
 Prior to my arrival in Pemba there were no European inhabitants. * * 
 
 The buying and selling of Slaves within the island itself undoubtedly prevails to 
 a considerable extent, but it is difficult to obtain conclusive evidence of such trans¬ 
 actions, and it is impossible entirely to prevent the practice. 
 
 I have been told that most of the British Indians in Pemba were Slave-owners up 
 to about fifteen months ago, but that they gave their Slaves papers of freedom at that 
 time, on learning that a British Representative was appointed to reside in the island, 
 and would shortly arrive. * * * 
 
 The lot of a plantation Slave in Pemba is a hard one at best. The Arab is a stern 
 and exacting task-master, often a cruel one as well. Beyond assigning to the Slave a 
 plot of land upon which to build himself a hut, and for the cultivation of sufficient 
 food to keep him alive, he gives himself no concern about the welfare of his chattel, to 
 whom he gives neither food nor clothing. The Slave works for his master on five days 
 out of the seven ; on Thursdays and Fridays in each week he is permitted, as a rule, 
 to work for himself, although, in many instances, Fridays only are allowed him. 
 During the clove-picking season the Slave works seven days a week for his owner, but 
 of the cloves picked by him on Thursdays and Fridays during that period, he is 
 allowed, as a rule, to keep for himself a proportion, usually one-third or one-half. 
 
 The free days in the week are devoted by the Slave to the cultivation of his plot 
 of land, in which he grows mohogo, maize, and sweet potatoes, which constitute his 
 staple diet. Occasionally he cuts fodder or firewood, which he carries for sale to the 
 nearest town or village. In this way he may earn, possibly, 40 pice in the course of 
 the two days ; out of such earnings he has to buy clothing, such as it is, for himself 
 and for his wife, if he has one, besides lamp oil and other small necessaries. The women 
 Slaves devote their Thursdays and Fridays either to the cultivation of the plots of 
 land, or else to the weaving of mats which are used in drying the cloves, and which 
 sell for a few pice each. 
 
 The enforcement of Seyyid Ali’s Decree of 1890 would in no way benefit the 
 servile population of Pemba, for it is manifestly impossible for a Slave to save up 
 sufficient money wherewith to purchase his freedom. 
 
 When a Slave becomes incapacitated for work, owing to disease or accident—old 
 age is hardly ever a cause, for the average life of a Slave is a short one—he is, in 
 almost every instance, discarded by his owner, and has to eke out an e.xistence as best 
 he can. It is pitiful to note the starved appearance and miserable condition of the dis¬ 
 abled specimens of humanity, who drag themselves to the towns on Friday in each 
 week to solicit alms from the charitable. 
 
 In the punishment of their Slav^es, the Arabs show little mercy ; for offences, even 
 of a trivial nature, savage floggings are administered, while for the heinous crime, in 
 Arab eyes, of running away from their owners, the wretched Slaves are treated with 
 the most ruthless severity, and, in some instances, are subjected to the most barbarous 
 cruelty. This was e.xemplified in the case of a male Slave whom I recently sent to 
 Zanzibar. The man belonged to Ali-bin-Abdull.yh-el-Then.\wi, the leading Arab 
 and largest Slave-owner in Pemba, and he attempted to effect his escape. For this his 
 master caused him to be flogged almost to death in the first instance ; he was after¬ 
 wards taken right out into the plantation and secured by means of iron anklets to a 
 growing clover tree, of which the stem was placed between his legs. There he was 
 left for over seven months, to serve as an object-lesson, which should deter the other 
 Slaves from imitating his e.xample. During all that period he received as food only 
 one cocoa-nut per day. His master evidently intended that the unfortunate man should 
 die a lingering death from suffering and starvation ; he was emaciated to the last degree 
 when I discovered him and set him free, and it is marvellous that he had survived so 
 long. The irons, moreover, had eaten completely through the flesh of his ankles to 
 the bone, and altogether he was the most pitiable object imaginable. It is satisfactory 
 
 Considerable 
 buying and 
 selling of 
 Slaves in 
 Pemba, in 
 spite of 
 Sultan’s 
 Decree of 
 1890. 
 
 Lot of a Slave 
 in Pemba 
 hard at the 
 best. Arabs 
 are stern and 
 exacting. 
 
 Average life 
 of a Slave 
 short. 
 
 Little mercy 
 shown in the 
 punishment of 
 Slaves. 
 
 Atrocious 
 
 cruelty 
 
 described. 
 
Agricultural 
 possibilities 
 of Pemba 
 boundless. 
 
 Superiority ( 
 Free Labour 
 over Slave. 
 
 to know that in this instance, at all events, the owner has paid the penalty of his 
 brutality. Ali-bin-Abdullah-el-Thenawi has been sentenced by the Consular Court 
 at Zanzibar to a term of seven years’ imprisonment ; he has been fined 500 rupees, 
 and he is prohibited from ever returning to Pemba. 
 
 In fairness to the other Arabs, it is to be said that Ali-bin-Abdullah was excep¬ 
 tionally notorious for his excessive cruelties, and many of the principal Slave-owners 
 have expressed to me their disapproval of his methods, especially as exemplified in the 
 case which I have described. 
 
 I am glad to be able to state, as a pleasant reverse to such a picture, that I know 
 of several instances where the Slaves are well and kindly treated by their masters, and 
 appear to be happy and contented with their lot. « » « 
 
 The agricultural possibilities of Pemba are simply boundless. The soil through¬ 
 out the western two-thirds of the island consists of a deep layer of vegetable humus, 
 which overlies in part a blue, and in parts a red, clay. It is of the most amazing 
 fertility, and the variety and luxuriance of the vegetation which it nourishes are 
 wonderful to behold. Here the clove attains to its greatest perfection. On some of 
 the plantations there are groves of those trees, said to be about sixty years old, of 
 which the average height is over fifty feet, and the yield of cloves per tree is as much 
 as three frasilas and upwards. In the eastern portion of the island the soil is a light, 
 sandy loam, which is well adapted for grains and pulse. 
 
 The annual rainfall in Pemba is enormous, and sunset is habitually succeeded by 
 drenching dew's. The sun’s rays acting upon the rich moist soil stimulates all kinds 
 of vegetation to an extraordinary degree, and the island is, in fact, a vast forcing- 
 house. 
 
 The existing conditions of soil and climate are suitable for an immense variety of 
 useful products. Amongst the cereals, rice thrives exceptionally well. In former 
 years considerable quantities of it were exported, of which the quality was admittedly 
 e.xcellent, but its cultivation is now much neglected, and the amount grown in the 
 island is insufficient for the local consumption. Jowari {Jiolcus sorghum), known to 
 the Arabs as " ta’am,” meaning food (whence the Ki-Swahili “ m’tama ”), also grows 
 well. It ripens in five months, and attains a height of nearly twenty feet. Maize 
 matures rapidly, and bears magnificent cobs. Many varieties of pulse grow almost wild. 
 Amongst them are to be enumerated the black, red, and white varieties of “ lubiya ” 
 and the “thur,” which is known to the Arabs as "turiyan,” and to the Wa-Swahili as 
 “ baradi.” A small green pea {phaseolus Mungo), called “chiroko” by the natives, 
 thrives well, as does also the small black grain {^phaseotus radiatus), locally termed 
 “ phiwi.” In a \vord, Pemba might be made the granary of East Africa. * 
 
 There is little doubt that after a while the freed Slaves, finding that they must 
 remain in the island, and failing to obtain other work, would settle down to agricultural 
 labour, especially when it became clear to them that they would receive fair remune¬ 
 ration for their toil. Moreover, the mainland blacks, and especially those along the 
 coast, would probably be willing enough to come and work in Pemba if they were 
 assured that there was no danger of their being enslaved. 
 
 Seychelles offers an encouraging example in connection with this question of 
 abolishing Slavery, for it has passed successfully through a crisis analogous to that 
 which may be expected to occur in Pemba if the Slaves in that island are liberated. 
 The population of Seychelles, apart from the European element, is composed of freed 
 Slaves and of their descendants, yet no difficulty is now experienced in getting those 
 people to work as agricultural labourers. 
 
 During a visit which I recently paid to Seychelles I had the opportunity of 
 visiting the chief plantations in the archipelago. I observed for myself how thoroughly 
 and well the general work of cultivation is carried out. The planters told me that the 
 negro labourers are in every way satisfactory, and that they are quite competent, 
 under supervision, to look after crops such as vanilla, coffee, and cacao, which require 
 especial care, and to prepare the different products for the market. The labourers 
 receive, on an average, 10 rupees per month each for si.x days’ work per week. 
 
 The superiority of the free labour in Seychelles as compared with the Slave 
 labour in Pemba is very striking. I should say that the Seychelles negro is fully three 
 times more efficient, from an agricultural point of view, than is the Pemba negro 
 under existing conditions, and the chief reason of the difference is undoubtedly that 
 the former is a free man, who receives adequate remuneration for his work, whereas 
 the latter is a Slave, who receives no remuneration of any kind for his enforced labour, 
 and whose only stimulus is fear of the stick. 
 
13 
 
 I do not anticipate that there will be any serious difficulty in carrying out the 
 provisions of a Decree for the abolition of Slavery. 
 
 It is to be expected, of course, that the attitude of the Arabs will be one of 
 hostility to any such measure ; but if compensation be awarded them, and if they 
 know that assistance will be extended to them on the lines which I have indicated in 
 the course of this report, they are not likely to offer any serious opposition to the 
 freeing of their Slaves. I do not think that, in any case, they are likely to push their 
 opposition to the length of an armed resistance. 
 
 Dr. O’Sulli¬ 
 van expects 
 no serious 
 difficulty in 
 carrying out 
 Abolition. 
 
 Doubtless, their position at first will be a trying one ; they are certain to e.xperience 
 much difficulty, for a time at least, in procuring labour for the cultivation of their 
 plantations, and this will be the case more especially for those amongst them who 
 have been harsh task-masters in the past. However, the labour difficulty will right 
 itself eventually, and the money paid to the Slave-owners as compensation will enable 
 them to tide over the worst of the crisis. 
 
 The Arabs have had a good innings in times gone by ; in future they will have 
 to pay for labour as other planters elsewhere do, and they must learn to adapt them¬ 
 selves as best they can to their altered circumstances. 
 
 “ Arabs have 
 had a good 
 innings.” 
 
 Pemb.\, Maj’ 2>oth, 1896. 
 
 Cbronological of ^reatice, QLaws, anb other 
 mattero with respect to Slavery anb the Slave^ITrabe 
 
 In 2 au 3 tbar. 
 
 In 1861, the Governor-General of India, as arbitrator, declared Zanzibar independent 
 of Muscat, to whose Imaums it had formerly belonged. For a list of treaties and 
 other documents bearing upon the Zanzibar Slave-trade prior to 1873, reference ma)’’ 
 be made to Sir E. Hertslet’s valuable Memorandum in the Report of the Royal 
 Commission on Fugitive Slaves (1876). In 1872, Sir Bartle Frere proceeded to 
 Zanzibar and Muscat on a special Anti-Slave-trade mission, and on June 5th, 1873, ^ 
 treaty was signed, which entirely abolished the export of Slaves from the African 
 mainland; it closed all public markets for sale of imported Slaves, and decreed 
 protection to all liberated Slaves, etc. 
 
 1874. January 17th. Provisional declaration as to meaning of Treaty, signed by 
 
 the Sultan and Dr. (now Sir John) Kirk. 
 
 1875. June 19th. Deputation from British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society 
 
 waited upon the Sultan of Zanzibar in London. 
 
 1875. July 14th. Treaty between Zanzibar and Great Britain, explanatory of 
 
 Treaty of 1873, permitting the presence on board of Zanzibar vessels of 
 domestic Slaves in attendance, or in discharge of their master’s business, 
 or as crews, if not carried against their will. 
 
 1876. January 25th. Sultan abolishes Slavery in Kismayu and Benadir. 
 
 1876. April i8th. Sult.yn abolishes Slave-trade on mainland. 
 
 1885. March 13th. Former orders against Slave-trade to Arabia and Pemba 
 
 confirmed by Sultan. 
 
 1886. November 8th. Zanzibar adhered to the Berlin Act, which declared the Slave- 
 
 trade to be against the law of Nations recognised by the Signatory Powers. 
 1886. December 13th. Sultan forbids separation, by sale, of husband and wife, 
 child from parent. 
 
 1889. September 13th. Sultan, by agreement with Great Britain, delegated to that 
 
 Power and to Germany perpetual right of search in his territorial waters; 
 declared free all persons entering his dominions after November ist, 1889, 
 and all children born of Slaves after January ist, 1890. 
 
 1890. June 14th. Sultan unreservedly placed his dominions under the protectorate 
 
 of Great Britain. 
 
 1890. July 2nd. Zanzibar was a Signatory Party to the Brussels Act against the 
 Slave-trade. 
 
 1890. August 1st. Anti-Slavery Decree issued by Sultan. 
 
 1890. August 9th. Decree of Sultan allowing punishment of Slaves. 
 
 1890. August 20th. Sultan cancelled important clauses of the Decree of August ist, 
 withheld from publication in England till December, 1891. 
 
14 
 
 * The 
 
 Friendy No¬ 
 vember 20th, 
 1896. 
 
 * See 
 
 Hansard’s De¬ 
 bates, March 
 27th, 1896. 
 
 t The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 ^ Vide the 
 Times, 1st 
 June, 1891. 
 
 * The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th 
 
 fGold 
 
 Coast Colony: 
 Ordinance, 
 
 No. 2, 1874. 
 
 Slavery in the Zansibav Sultanate. 
 
 By J. Eastoe Teall, Assistant Secretary of the British and Foreign 
 
 Anti-Slavery Society. 
 
 On the 14th November, 1896, a Deputation from the Society of Friends 
 waited upon the Right Honourable George Curzon, M.P., Her Majesty's 
 Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, for the purpose of urging upon 
 the Government the full and immediate Abolition of Slav-ery in Zanzibar 
 and Pemba {vide Official Report, revised by Mr. Curzon, in The Friend, a 
 weekly journal, circulating largely amongst members of the Society of 
 Friends).* 
 
 Memorials had been already addressed to the Marquis of Salisbury (i) 
 by the British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society (to which no reply had 
 been received), and (2) by the Representative Meeting of the Society 
 of Friends. 
 
 In replying to the views laid before him by the various speakers, the 
 Parliamentary Under-Secretary unconsciously revealed the fact of how 
 difficult it is for the Foreign Office to attempt to deal with a question 
 such as Slavery, about which it has had practically no experience in the past, 
 and one could therefore not expect that accuracy of detail, or clearness of 
 reasoning, which one would naturally look for from an official of the Colonial 
 Department—a Department which has had on many occasions to carry out a 
 Scheme of Abolition. 
 
 Mr. Curzo.n at once alluded to the pledge which had been given by him 
 in March last,* that Slavery should be abolished when Mr. H.\rdinge returned 
 to Zanzibar in the present autumn, and “ repeated and endorsed "f what he 
 then said, adding that when Mr. Hardinge returned, '•'‘probably in January,” 
 ‘‘ he will most likely carry full instructions with him to put into effect upon 
 his arrival.So that in the autumn of 1896 the problem of Zanzibar 
 Slavery can hardly be said to have advanced much nearer towards its 
 solution than it had prior to the rising of Parliament. A more injudicious 
 policy than one of procrastination with respect to Slavery cannot be imagined, 
 and unless the Government bestir itself it may find that the negroes 
 of Zanzibar and Pemba, knowing that the people of Great Britain are their 
 friends, will forcibly settle for themselves the question of Slavery, in spite of 
 the protecting power, as they did in the Comoro Islands in 1891.^ 
 
 The Parliamentary Under-Secretary then proceeded to argue that some 
 machinery in the shape of Courts to interpret and enforce the Decree would 
 have to be constituted ;* but he was careful not to explain the nature of the 
 Decree contemplated. Hitherto, Decrees for the Abolition of Slavery have 
 been framed with sufficient clearness so that no special Courts have been 
 required to interpret and enforce their meaning. Why should there be any 
 exception then with respect to Zanzibar ? The same method which has 
 been adopted on previous occasions with respect to Slavery can equally well 
 be applied to Zanzibar Sultanate. For example ; 
 
 “ If at any time after this Ordinance shall have come into operation any claim 
 or alleged right over or affecting the liberty of any person shall be made, stated, or 
 brought into controvers}’, or shall arise, or come in question, whether as a ground or 
 cause of action, or by way of plea, answer, demurrer, or defence of, in, or to any suit, 
 action, cause, indictment, information, prosecution, or proceeding, or in any other 
 manner of way whatsoever, then, and in every such case, such claim or alleged right 
 shall be deemed and be of no force or validity, and every Court of Justice, Judge, 
 Magistrate, native King, Chief, and other tribunal authority, and person before whom 
 any such claim or alleged right may be made, stated, brought into controversy, or shall 
 arise, or come in question as aforesaid, shall refuse, disallow, discharge, and dismiss 
 the same for all purposes and effects whatsoever.”t 
 Or, 
 
 “ I. Involuntary servitude, e.xcept for any crime or offence whereof a person 
 shall have been duly convicted, is hereby declared to be unlawful. 
 
15 
 
 “ 2. No rights arising out of an alleged property in the person and services of 
 another as a Slave shall be enforced by any Civil or Criminal Court, or other authority 
 whatsoever within this Island.”! 
 
 A Decree embodying such a clause would be compulsory upon every 
 Court and official in Zanzibar and Pemba, including the Sultan himself. 
 
 Mr. CuRZON then referred to the question of Muhammadan law in its 
 relation to Slavery, to which his attention had been drawn by Mr. Alex¬ 
 ander,* and the deputation were informed that the Sherta, or religious law 
 of Islam, prevailed there. Well, so it does in other Muhammadan countries 
 where it has not been overruled by the law of a paramount Power. Follow¬ 
 ing Mr. H.ardinge’s dicta^ given in February, 1895,! Mr. Curzon maintained 
 that by that law Slavery was generally recognised in Muhammadan coun¬ 
 tries, “and it is undoubtedly so regarded by the bulk of the population of 
 Zanzibar.”! 
 
 Now the bulk of the population of Zanzibar consists of negro Slaves, and 
 surely Mr. Curzon cannot mean that they admit the legality of their 
 bondage because of its alleged sanction by the Sheria. 
 
 But the teachings of the Koran itself and the writings of its com¬ 
 mentators, coupled with the decisions of Muhammadan Law Courts in 
 India, and the opinions of Sultans and other .Muhammadan authorities, 
 make it perfectly clear how far Slavery is legal under that law, and nothing 
 could be stronger than the statement with regard to Slavery in Zanzibar 
 than the answer of the Muftees and Pundits of the Court of Sudder 
 Dewanny Adawlut, in April, 1808 :— 
 
 “ We are not acquainted with the principal or detailed circumstances which 
 led to the custom prevailing in most Mussulman countries of purchasing and selling 
 the inhabitants of Zunquebar, Ethiopia, and Nubia, and other negroes ; but the 
 ostensible causes are, either that the negroes sell their own offspring, or that Mussul¬ 
 man or other tribes of people take them prisoners by fraud and deceit, or seize them 
 by stealth from the sea shores. 
 
 “ In such cases, however, they are not legally slaves, and the sale and purchase of 
 them is consequently invalid.” || 
 
 Mr. Curzon then alluded to the Apprenticeship System, § which was 
 enacted by the first Slavery Abolition Law passed by Great Britain in 1833.* 
 He admitted being imperfectly informed upon the question, and it is to be 
 regretted that he committed himself to the statement that the ^'‘system ran 
 out its due course^ only being ended in some cases by freedom being enacted 
 in the Colonies themselves.” Appended will be found a brief sketch of this 
 system, as no complete account of the movement for its abolition has hitherto 
 been published. It is based in the main upon documentary evidence in the 
 possession of the British .a.nd Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, amplified by 
 information gleaned by the writer, both in the West Indies and in the 
 United Kingdom, from those who took part in the movement. 
 
 Exception must be taken to the statement t that there was a “ most 
 ineradicable race hatred ” between “the white planters and their families and 
 the black populations ” in the West Indies, for the remark is hardly fair to 
 either of the parties alluded to. Any one who came into personal contact 
 with the generation of negroes who were liberated in the West Indies in 
 1838 can testify to the general respect in which the former masters and their 
 families were held by the freedmen ; whilst, as regards the masters, 
 there were a great many who were kind and considerate to the Slaves upon 
 their estates. Such hatred as existed, lay principally among the attorneys, 
 overseers and other managers for the absentee proprietors, of whom there 
 were a large number. Many of these men, by their injudicious action on 
 the termination of the Apprenticeship, succeeded in dislocating the state of 
 affairs to some extent, but the disturbing factor was the pro-Slavery spirit of 
 the Imperial Act and the Acts in aid passed by the local legislatures. The 
 
 ! Cyprus : 
 Ordinance, 
 December 
 2nd, 1879. 
 
 * The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 f Parliament¬ 
 ary Paper, C. 
 7,707, p. 27. 
 
 + The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 Reference on 
 Muhammad¬ 
 anism and 
 Slavery may 
 be made to the 
 Koran (Suras 
 
 16, 24, 47, 
 
 90). The Life 
 and Teachings ' 
 of Mohammed, 
 by Judge 
 Syed Ameer 
 Ali, Chapter 
 14, and many 
 other works. 
 
 II House of 
 Commons 
 Return, No. 
 125, on 
 Slavery in 
 India, 1828, 
 
 p. 304. 
 
 § The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 * 3 and 4 
 Will. IV., 
 c. 73 - 
 
 j The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
i6 
 
 J Message 
 of the Queen, 
 3rd Novem¬ 
 ber, 1874, c. 
 1,139, PP- 26, 
 
 27. 
 
 H Parliament¬ 
 ary Paper, C. 
 
 4,192. 
 
 § Herts- 
 
 LET’s Treaties^ 
 Vol. 18, 
 p. 1,201. 
 
 * Parliament¬ 
 ary Paper, C. 
 6,955, P. I- 
 
 J Herts- 
 LET's Treaties, 
 Vol. 19, 
 
 P- 945. 
 
 1 The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 carrying out of those Acts established clearly that the term “ Negro Appren¬ 
 ticeship ” is but another name for Slavery, and no law which sets up such a 
 system can be considered as one for Abolition. 
 
 Then, with regard to Protectorates: It is quite true that the Indian 
 Act V. of 1843 did not apply to the Protected Native States, India at that time 
 being governed by the Honourable East India Company ; but the influence 
 of Great Britain was exerted, and some of these States, if not, indeed, all, 
 were induced to abolish Slavery. But if we turn to the protected territories 
 on the Gold Coast of Africa, the native chiefs were informed, on the 
 assumption of the Protectorate, that Slavery was to be abolished by the 
 Imperial Government,! the details being carried out by the Legislative 
 Council of the Gold Coast Colony. Then, again, in the Malay States the 
 English Government brought about the abolition of Slavery in 1883,1 the 
 details being left to the local Government, under the direction of the British 
 Resident. 
 
 The contention that Great Britain is “ not the executive Power,” but 
 “ the protecting Power,” so far as Zanzibar is concerned, is purely technical, 
 for on the assumption by Great Britain of the Protectorate, in 1890, the 
 Sultan accepted “ freely and unreservedly for himself, his subjects, and his 
 dominions the Protectorate of Great Britain ; ” and he further understood 
 and agreed “ that all his relations, of whatever sort, with foreign Powers 
 shall be conducted under the sole advice and through the channel of Her 
 Majesty’s Government.” § 
 
 The hold of the British Government over Zanzibar became intensified in 
 1891, when the British Consul-General. Sir Gerald Portal, arranged with 
 the Sultan “ that he should receive a fixed monthly stipend for his own 
 personal expenses, that proper accounts should be kept of all revenue and 
 expenditure, and that various distinct Departments of Government should 
 be created, organised, and placed under the control of English officials, who 
 should be irremovable, except by consent of Her Majesty’s Consul-General.”* 
 
 On the 1 6th December, 1892, Sir Gerald Portal arranged with the 
 Sultan that he should delegate to the British Agent and Consul-General his 
 jurisdiction in all cases arising within the British Protectorate of Zanzibar in 
 which the plaintiff or complainant was subject to the jurisdiction of the 
 protecting Power, and the defendant or accused was one of his subjects, or 
 of other non-Christian Powers not represented by consuls, the Sultan 
 retaining the right to appoint an assessor.! 
 
 On the death of Seyyid Ali, in March, 1893, Great Britain, with the 
 aid of her bluejackets, placed upon the throne of Zanzibar her own nominee, 
 Mohammed Bin Thwain, passing over other claimants, and still further 
 enforced her power in 1896, on his death, by bombarding the town of 
 Zanzibar, and again placing her nominee upon the throne, in opposition to 
 the wishes of a large number of the Arab population. 
 
 With these two instances of the action of the Government, whereby 
 disturbances did occur in Zanzibar, it is rather surprising to note the stress 
 laid by the Under-Secretary of State, in connection with Slavery, upon the 
 fact that it is “ the duty of the Government to prevent anything in the 
 nature of public disturbance.’’H This no one will deny, but we would 
 venture to suggest that it is also the duty of the British Government to 
 carry out the wishes of the nation, expressed over and over again in no 
 uncertain tone, that Slavery shall be no more in any portion whatsoever of 
 its dominions, and no quibblings about “ executive power,” “ ruling power,” 
 “ protecting power,” will relieve them from that duty. If Great Britain 
 has found it not only possible, but in fact practically easy to abolish 
 Slavery in India, Ceylon, Hong Kong, the Straits Settlements, the Gold 
 Coast, Cyprus, etc., while such has also been the experience of other 
 Nations, by placing every person under the protection and jurisdiction of the 
 
17 
 
 ordinary law, and without money payment, why should an exception be made 
 in the case of the territories under British Protection in Africa ? Further 
 delay tends rather to create than to prevent disturbance. 
 
 Then Mr. Curzon alluded to the danger “ of a large exodus of Slaves 
 from the plantations,” but he did not inform the Deputation where the 
 Slaves would go to, or how they would leave the islands of Zanzibar and 
 Pemba, which are distant many miles from the mainland, and to which they 
 would hardly be likely to emigrate, seeing that Slavery still exists there. Is 
 there a single instance of the whole body of Slaves, on being liberated, 
 stampeding from the plantations, unless driven away either by the proprietors 
 or by the injudicious action of the authorities ? “ We want to take steps to 
 
 prevent that,” said Mr. Curzon ; but here again he did not explain how they 
 were going to do so. If a Slave be liberated, surely he is entitled to go where 
 he may please, so long as he does not break the law which rules the whole of 
 the population ; if not, then he is still a Slave, call him what you like. 
 
 Then, urged Mr. Curzon, “ while securing justice for the Slaves, you do 
 not want to ruin their owners, still less to render the Government of Zanzibar 
 bankrupt.”* But it seems to have been forgotten that the “owners” have 
 for at least 23 years been breaking the law of Zanzibar by importing Slaves 
 who have been raided from Africa. It is believed that the raiders have 
 eluded in 95^ of cases the vigilance of such English ships of war as have 
 at intervals patrolled those seas, and yet it is calmly suggested by the 
 officials, both in Zanzibar and England, that a sum of money should be 
 paid as “ compensation ” to the Arabs because they will be ruined. 
 Like the West Indian Slave owners, they are in many, if not in most 
 cases, on the verge of ruin already, for their estates are heavily 
 mortgaged, and any sum of money paid as so-called compensation 
 would go to pay off the mortgages on the estates, and the proprietors 
 would be no better off than they were before. If the Zanzibar 
 Government choose to make a present to the Arabs for breaking the 
 law, let them do it out of the funds which, in the report for 1894,* stood 
 at the Bank of England to the credit of that Government. They can hardly 
 expect the British taxpayer to pay over a large sum of money and thus 
 become an accessory to the breach, both of the laws of humanity, and the 
 compacts of nations. If the Abolition of Slavery would make the Zanzibar 
 Government bankrupt, then the sooner the Zanzibar Government turn their 
 attention to deriving revenue from other sources than Slave labour the better 
 for the revenue, the islands, and the people. The policy by which a Protecting 
 Power would allow commercial treaties* made by a suzerain with other 
 nations to hamper the administration and interfere with the raising of the 
 revenue, so as in fact to make it dependent in the main upon Slave labour, 
 is not a policy economically sound, and so long as such a policy is 
 maintained, so long will Slave raids continue in the interior of Africa, for 
 the supply of Slaves for Zanzibar, Pemba, etc. Neither is it a policy which 
 would be tolerated for one moment were the British public to be fully aware 
 of its existence. 
 
 After alluding to the desire of the Government to get the Arab Slave 
 owners on our side, Mr. Curzon propounded the startling theory that many 
 of them “ are wholly dependent on their Slaves, and are their legal 
 owners in virtue of Decrees which we have ourselves authorised and enforced.”! 
 Here, again, the Under Secretary is silent as to what Decrees he refers to. 
 He may be presumed, however, to refer to the Decree issued by the 
 Sultan, on the ist August, 1890,* which prohibited all exchange, sale, 
 or purchase of Slaves, and enacted other limitations of the legal rights of 
 the Slave-holders. These provisions were preceded by the following 
 clause : “ We declare that, subject to the conditions stated below, all Slaves 
 lawfully possessed on this date by our subjects shall remain with their owners 
 as at present. Their status shall be unchanged.” 
 
 This clause contains no limit of time ; the question therefore arises, 
 whether it means that the status shall be unchanged ” until further decree ” 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 ’Parliament¬ 
 ary Paper, 
 
 C. 7,706, p.2I. 
 
 * A list of 
 Treaties will 
 be found in 
 Sir E. Herts- 
 let’s The Map 
 of Africa by 
 Treaty, Vol. 
 11 . 
 
 t The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 * Vide 
 
 Official Copy 
 in Arabic and 
 English, Anti- 
 Slavery Re¬ 
 porter, Sept.- 
 Oct., 1890, 
 pp. 231-2 
 
i8 
 
 + The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 tParliament- 
 ary Paper, 
 C.7,707, p.27. 
 
 I Coolie 
 Indenture 
 Labour. State¬ 
 ment of the 
 British and 
 Foreign 
 Anti- 
 Slavery 
 Society, 
 showing its 
 policy with 
 reference to 
 Contract 
 Labour, 1888. 
 
 * The 
 
 Friend, No¬ 
 vember 20th. 
 
 * Parliament¬ 
 ary Paper, 
 
 C. 8,275, 
 
 PP- 38, 39 - 
 t The 
 African 
 limes, Sep¬ 
 tember 1896, 
 
 or “for ever”? The former is obviously the true construction. To read 
 into the clause the words “ for ever ” would be to construe it as an attempt to 
 bind the Sultan and his successors in the exercise of their legislative 
 powers throughout all time, or at least throughout the life of every Slave 
 then living, a construction which is manifestly absurd. Whilst the alter¬ 
 native construction, that it means “ until further decree,” is altogether 
 reasonable and probable. 
 
 Thus it is clear that the Sultan himself has not guaranteed the con¬ 
 tinuance of Slavery ; still less, then, has the British Government made itself 
 responsible for such continuance. 
 
 Referring to what he called “ the dictum of Sir John Kirk,” to the effect 
 that as soon as the legal status of Slavery was abolished there would be a 
 great influx of free labour from the mainland, Mr. Curzon stated “ unfor¬ 
 tunately that is not our experience.” Anyone hearing this would naturally 
 infer that Slavery had been abolished on the mainland, and that the Govern¬ 
 ment had tried in vain to obtain any labour on the spot. But the simple fact 
 is that Slavery has not been abolished on the mainland : if it had been, 
 without doubt the Government could have procured an almost unlimited 
 supply of labour in the country for the construction of the railway from 
 Mombasa to Uganda. They had therefore engaged a large number of Coolies. 
 The Indian Government, said Mr. Curzon, “ sanctioned the export of Coolies 
 under Government officers, and under the guarantee of a Government official. 
 But they do not permit them to be engaged for service in the plantations of 
 Zanzibar.”! The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society has had much 
 experience of this question, and the wisdom of the Indian Government in this 
 matter cannot be too highly commended, for some of the officials of Zanzibar 
 have all along been advocating the importation of Coolies into the Islands.t 
 In the year 1888 the Society issued a statement! on this question, from which 
 it will be seen that the system has always been deemed by it to be but little 
 removed from Slavery and the Slave-trade. 
 
 The statement* that the whole of the officials and all the missionaries 
 on the spot expected a ferment if Slavery were at once abolished 
 is not one that should cause any alarm to an abolitionist. The 
 whole question is one of moral principle. If Slavery (which is the cause of 
 the Slave-trade) be right, then it should not be interfered with ; but, if it be 
 wrong, no geographical limits or imaginary dangers can justify its con¬ 
 tinuance for a single moment. So far as we know, none of the officials or 
 the missionaries on the spot have had any experience whatever of the 
 abolition of Slavery, their opinion, therefore, can, at the most, only be one of 
 a speculative character, and, as such, is worth neither more nor less than that 
 of any one living in Zanzibar or any other Slave-holding country. If the 
 officials had devoted a little more of their attention to the question of 
 liberating the great bulk of the population in the two islands, instead of, as 
 in many instances, acting as the advocates of the Arab Slave-owners, their 
 opinion would be entitled to more consideration than, as a matter of fact, it 
 will now receive from the public. We are informed by Bishop Tucker that 
 the letters which were published in “ Africa,” No. 7, from a few missionaries 
 and ladies of the C. M. S. in Mombasa, in which opinions are expressed 
 adverse to immediate abolition, were not authorised by himself, as head of 
 the Mission, or by the Official Secretarv, whilst the Bishop’s own letter was 
 not inserted in the Parliamentary paper. They can now only be accepted 
 as private opinions of persons who have not had any real experience 
 on the two Slave islands now under British protection. We do not, however, 
 admit for one moment that all the officials and all the missionaries on the 
 spot are opposed to immediate abolition, and the attempt to reduce the 
 question of Slavery to one of geography will not strengthen the case of the 
 Arab Slave-owners and Slave-traders of Zanzibar and Pemba. The out¬ 
 spoken language of Bishop Tucker and some of his colleagues,* and 
 the views of Archdeacon Jones-Bateman,! of Zanzibar, in support of the 
 
 f 
 
19 
 
 abolition of Slavery, cannot be ignored, for they are based not only upon 
 sound economic principles, but on the religion which it is their privilege to 
 teach. Neither ought the Anti-Slavery views of prominent ex-officials in 
 Zanzibar to be passed over by the Government, as would appear to be the case. 
 
 In concluding his remarks, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary declared 
 that the responsibility in the matter of Slavery would lie upon the Govern¬ 
 ment. To this we would reply that the responsibility will lie upon the 
 British nation as a whole, with whom rests the power of appointing 
 the Government from time to time. If a Government ignores the 
 experience of the past, and refuses to carry out that policy which has been 
 proved, over and over again, to be the most beneficial to all the inhabitants 
 of a land, and adopts measures which have, more or less, proved prejudicial 
 in the past, of what use will it be to plead the responsibility of the Govern¬ 
 ment, should troubles arise ? One Government may succeed another, but 
 the evil results will remain, and the British nation will have to bear the 
 consequences. If, on the other hand, a Government strives to uphold that 
 high policy which, enunciated by the nation, has for more than half a 
 century guided its statesmen in the administration of this great Empire—a 
 policy which has for its motto “Be just and fear not ”—then it will earn for 
 itself the blessings of thousands, bring liberty and prosperity to every 
 section of its people, and add lustre to the Crown itself. 
 
 ^ Srief ^flccount of tfje Jlesults of (Bvantiixg (fom= 
 pcnsattoit to tfie tbest Jii6tan Slctoe f?ol5ers, an6 
 tf?e (Continuation of Slanerg un6er tfje name of 
 " ^g^jrenticestjip.” 
 
 In consequence of the unmistakable mandate of the nation, the British 
 Government, in 1833, introduced a Bill for the Abolition of Slavery through¬ 
 out the British Colonies, Possessions, and Plantations abroad, except India, 
 Ceylon, and St. Helena. 
 
 At that period the West Indians were a very strong political party, whilst 
 the Abolitionists, although in a majority in the House of Commons, had 
 obtained that majority by means of a stringent pledge, adhesion to which had 
 only been acceded to by many members under fear of defeat at the polls. 
 When, therefore, the Government were forced into action, immense pressure 
 was brought to bear upon them by the Slave owning interest, and the Bill 
 was essentially framed in their behalf. Their estates were, in great part, and 
 had been for several years^“> practically insolvent, and they knew that were 
 Slavery to be extinguished they would, in many cases, by the foreclosing of 
 mortgages, and by other process of law, be unable to stave off bankruptcy. 
 They therefore endeavoured by every means in their power to obtain the best 
 terms for themselves ; and in doing so, probably the argument raised by 
 them which carried most weight with the Government and the weaker 
 members of the Anti-Slavery party in Parliament, was that as the Legislature 
 had not directly interfered with Slavery the nation was responsible for its 
 existence in the Colonies, and, consequently, that the whole burden of its 
 removal should not fall upon the Slave owners. They therefore demanded 
 compensation. To this plea the Government readily listened, and in their 
 original plan paved the way for it by proposing a loan of 15,000,000 in 
 return for the abolition of Slavery,coupled with a scheme of so-called 
 “ Apprenticeship.” As will be seen, this “ Apprenticeship ” turned out to 
 be really a more vicious and more destructive system than the one which it 
 superseded, for having no vested interest to induce them to keep the negroes 
 
 (a) Vide 
 Report of 
 Select Com¬ 
 mittee of the 
 House of 
 Commons on 
 Commercial 
 State of the 
 West India 
 Colonies, 
 1832. 
 
 Vide 
 
 Debate, 14th 
 May, 1833. 
 
20 
 
 Minutes 
 of the Anti- 
 Slavery 
 Society and 
 A nti-Slavery 
 
 Reporter, 
 
 Vide 
 
 Debate, 14th 
 May, 1833, 
 and Mr. 
 Sturge’s 
 
 work on 
 “ Compensa¬ 
 tion.” 
 
 <0 Vide 
 Debate, 14th 
 May, 1833. 
 
 Vide 
 
 “ Life of Sir 
 Thomas 
 Fowell 
 Buxton. 
 
 (6) Vide 
 Debates on 
 the Slavery 
 Abolition Bill, 
 
 1833. 
 
 fc) Vide 
 “ Life of Sir 
 Thomas 
 Fowell 
 Buxton,” the 
 Patriot, and 
 other contem¬ 
 porary news¬ 
 papers. 
 
 («) Original 
 documents. 
 
 Accounts 
 of Slave Com¬ 
 pensation 
 Claims, No. 
 215, i6th 
 March, 1838, 
 
 P. 334- 
 (c) Vide 
 Mr. Edmund 
 Sturge’s 
 
 work on 
 “ Compensa¬ 
 tion.” 
 
 (a) Vide 
 Reports of 
 Special 
 Justices, etc., 
 in Papers 
 ordered by 
 House of 
 Commons, 
 
 1839. 
 
 * Vide 
 the “ Chroni¬ 
 cle ” of the 
 London 
 Missionary 
 Society, De¬ 
 cember, 1896, 
 p. 272. 
 
 alive beyond the term of their servitude, the planters were in many instances 
 indifferent as to their treatment and fate. 
 
 But the Slave owners were not yet satisfied, and soon after the Govern¬ 
 ment Bill had been introduced, the loan of ^15,000,000 was changed into a 
 gift of a sum not exceeding ^^20,000,000. 
 
 Two plans of a really Anti-Slavery character were laid before the Govern¬ 
 ment, one by the Anti-Slavery Society,^"’ and the other by the late Earl 
 Gkey^*'^ (then Viscount Howick). The latter entered the Government as 
 Under-Secretary for the Colonies, being a strong believer in gradual 
 Abolition—he soon discovered, however, how futile any such scheme would 
 be, and became convinced that immediate Abolition was the only remedy 
 for the evils of Slaveryresigning office when he saw the inconsistencies 
 and injudicious provisions of the Government measure. 
 
 Mr. Buxton,^"' and other Anti-Slavery Leaders in Parliament, were of 
 opinion that none but a Ministerial Bill could be passed that session, and 
 that were the one before the Legislature rejected no other would be 
 obtainable ; whilst some of them were inclined to fear the outbreak of a 
 servile insurrection were freedom delayed beyond that year. Whilst accept¬ 
 ing the Compensation "Scheme on these grounds, Mr. Buxton endeavoured 
 to obtain the withholding of one-half of the money grant until the Appren¬ 
 ticeship had ceased,but in this he was unsuccessful. He, however, obtained 
 a reduction of the period of Apprenticeship by one half the term proposed. 
 The action of the Parliamentary leaders in accepting the Government Bill 
 did not, however, commend itself to the Abolition party as a whole,most 
 of whom objected to the Compensation Grant and Apprenticeship System 
 as a violation of principle. They would not have opposed measures of relief 
 to the planters subsequent to Abolition, if injury were proved to result 
 therefrom, but they most decidedly objected to anything like purchase.*"’ 
 
 The nation, however, paid a sum of 8,600,000**’’ odd towards the 
 Abolition of Sla\ ery, but it brought to large numbers of the Slave proprietors 
 no relief, for the money found its way into the pockets of the mortgagees and 
 others who had liens upon the estates, and thenceforth the cry was raised 
 that the West Indies had been ruined by emancipation. What ruined the 
 Slave proprietors was the competition of the products of British India and 
 Mauritius, when the home markets were opened to them some years before 
 Emancipation,*®’ coupled with the exhausting system of absentee proprietor¬ 
 ship. Had the planters made better terms with the liberated negroes, instead 
 of driving them off the estates, as many did, by exorbitant rent charges and 
 other petty persecutions,*"’ there would not have been so many ruinate 
 estates as was the case when, as a boy, I lived in the West Indies. 
 
 But the strongest argument against compensation will be found in the fact 
 that when Great Britain abolished Slavery in India, in Ceylon, in the Straits 
 Settlements, on the Gold Coast of Africa, and in Cyprus, no question of 
 compensation ever arose. By simply declaring that equality before the law, 
 to which all her subjects are entitled, Great Britain settled, once and for all, 
 the question of Slavery. 
 
 No farther back than the 27th of September, 1896, the French Resident, 
 M. Laroche, abolished Slavery with a stroke of the pen in Madagascar. 
 Said the Decree :— 
 
 “ Tons les habitants de Madagascar sont personnes libresP 
 
 This Decree was reaffirmed on the ist of October, and the prevailing 
 feeling among the missionaries was one of surprise that the great event had 
 passed off so quietly. Writes one :— 
 
 " We used to plan in our minds various ways of bringing about gradual 
 emancipation, and here, by a stroke of the pen, the thing is done, and the fetters are 
 struck from about a million Slaves. The name of M. Laroche will be for ever 
 associated with this event.” * 
 
 What can be done in Madagascar can be done equally well in Zanzibar 
 and Pemba. 
 
21 
 
 The Apprenticeship System. 
 
 The Apprenticeship System, as established by the Act of 1833, was, briefly 
 stated, as follows :— 
 
 Subject to the restraint and obligations specified, the Act declared that the 
 negro should in every other respect be considered in the light of a freeman. His 
 restraints were that he should during the term of such Apprenticeship remain dis¬ 
 qualified from holding certain public offices, or exercising certain political and 
 municipal rights. His obligations were that he should labour industriously, but 
 without wages, in the service of his former master, now to be called his employer, 
 for 45 hours per week for the space of six years for agricultural labourers, and in the 
 case of tradesmen, domestics, etc., the duration of servitude was limited to four years. 
 
 The conditions to be observed by the master were that during the term of 
 servitude he should be bound to provide a full supply of food to each apprentice, 
 according to existing regulations, failing such regulations they were to be enacted; 
 where the labourer was supported not by the delivery of provisions but by the 
 cultivation of allotted portions of land for his own use, the Act declared that such 
 land should be adequate in quantity and quality, and at a reasonable distance from 
 the labourer’s abode, and that a certain portion of time adequate to the proper 
 cultivation of such ground should be allotted out of the 45 hours per week otherwise 
 due to the master. 
 
 Any other “ maintenance or allowances” to which the Slave was entitled should 
 be continued to the apprentice, who was to be supplied with adequate clothing 
 annually, and with medicine and medical care. 
 
 The apprentice was to have the right of redeeming himself on payment of a fair 
 equivalent for his remaining term of servitude, the appraisement to be made by an 
 impartial tribunal. 
 
 It was decreed that no employer of an apprentice should be authorised to punish 
 such apprentice by whipping, imprisonment, by adding to the hours of labour, or by 
 any other mode of correction; but that all offences should be adjudicated on and 
 punished by Justices specially appointed for the purposes of the Act. No female 
 apprentice should be liable to the whipping or beating of her person by sentence of 
 any Judge, Court or Justice. 
 
 The apprentice was to be allowed the full and free use of all that portion of his 
 time which was not by law claimable by his master, and lastly he was to be protected 
 from all wrong and injury, fraud, cruelty, or injustice, by the direct supervision of an 
 impartial arbitrator who was to be vested with summary jurisdiction, and enjoy full 
 protection in the discharge of his duties. 
 
 Such was the basis on which the apprenticeship system was framed, but the 
 details for carrying into effect the principles laid down were left to the Colonial 
 Legislatures, subject to the proviso that any legislation contrary to the spirit of the 
 Imperial Act should be null and void, and that any colony which refused or neglected 
 to frame enactments should not be entitled to receive any portion of the compensation 
 money. 
 
 The Act of Parliament came into force on the ist August, 1834— 
 Bermuda and Antigua voluntarily dispensing with the Apprenticeship 
 Clauses of the Imperial Act—and in all cases the event passed off quietly. 
 
 Rumours of hardships and gross cruelties perpetrated upon the appren¬ 
 tices reached England early in 1835, and inquiries were at once forwarded 
 by the Anti-Slavery Society to the West Indies.* A Parliamentary 
 Inquiry would have taken place but for the assurances of the Colonial 
 Secretary as to the intentions of Government. Reports from missionaries 
 and others, however, tended to increase the anxiety of the friends of 
 the negro, and particularly Mr. Joseph Sturge, who determined to appeal 
 to the country at large upon the question of Apprenticeship. He there¬ 
 fore summoned meetings in Birmingham to consider the condition of the 
 apprenticed negroes, at one of which a memorial to Lord Melbourne was 
 adopted, protesting against the attempts of the West Indian planters to 
 defeat the Emancipation Act, and expressing the conviction that nothing 
 but the abolition of the Apprenticeship would even materially alleviate the 
 oppressions of the system.t 
 
 The local Act in aid of the Imperial Act passed by the Jamaica Legis¬ 
 lature expired in December, 1835, and the House of Assembly refused to 
 
 * Minutes 
 of Anti- 
 Slavery 
 Society. 
 
 f Report of 
 the Meeting 
 held on the 
 14th October, 
 1835, printed 
 by R. Hud¬ 
 son, Birming¬ 
 ham. 
 
22 
 
 J “ Life of 
 Joseph 
 Sturge,” by 
 H. Richard. 
 
 t “ Mirror 
 of Parlia¬ 
 ment,” 1836. 
 
 (o) '< Life of 
 
 Joseph j! 
 Sturge.” 
 
 (W Ibid, 
 also Fourth 
 Report of 
 Glasgow 
 Emancipation 
 Society. 
 
 f®) Minutes 
 of the Anti- 
 Slavery 
 Society. 
 
 (d) British 
 Emancipator, 
 
 1837. 
 
 renew it unless certain clauses, which had been previously disallowed by the 
 Crown, were inserted. The Government, however, stood firm and insisted 
 on the execution of the Act. 
 
 In February, 1836, Mr. Sturge summoned another meeting at Bir¬ 
 mingham with respect to the Apprenticeship ; and at this gathering he gave 
 copious extracts from the letters which had been received from the colonies, 
 revealing the cruelties perpetrated upon the apprentices, and a series of 
 resolutions urging the abolition of the system were passed.! 
 
 Mr. Buxton, too, in the House of Commons, obtained a Select Committee^ 
 to inquire into the whole subject, but the Committee limited its inquiries to 
 Jamaica, and whilst it confirmed the principal allegations of the abolitionists, 
 reported that the apprenticeship was working not unfavourably. 
 
 But Mr. Sturge, whose intimate acquaintance with many of the 
 missionaries, and other well-informed individuals in the West Indies, had 
 given him peculiar opportunities of receiving accurate information, resolved 
 to take practical steps for arriving at the truth of the matter, and set sail in 
 October, 1836, in company with Thomas Harvey, John Scoble, and Dr. 
 Lloyd for the West Indies.Arriving in the new world at the end of the 
 year, Messrs. Sturge and Harvey visited Antigua, Montserrat, Dominica, 
 St. Lucia, Jamaica and Barbados (calling also at Martinique and Barbuda), 
 receiving in most of these places the aid of Government officials and other 
 persons qualified to give evidence. Messrs. Scoble and Lloyd visited 
 British Guiana. On the return of Mr. Sturge, in 1837, he was examined 
 for several days before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, the 
 reappointment of which Mr. Buxton had obtained. The Committee, how¬ 
 ever, came to an end, in consequence of the death of the king, without 
 arriving at any definite conclusion. 
 
 Petitions to the Queen from the ladies of the United Kingdom were 
 also resolved upon, and duly carried out by the Ladies’ Negro Friend and 
 other Societies. The main work, however, of arousing the country fell upon 
 the shoulders of Mr. Joseph Sturge. Mr. Buxton was no longer a member of 
 the House of Commons, whilst none of the Parliamentary Anti-Slavery veterans 
 were desirous of re-opening the question. Mr. Sturge knew that his only 
 chance of success lay in the awakening of the moral and religious feelings of 
 the country, and to those feelings he appealed. In the month of June, 1837,^*'^ 
 the citizens of Birmingham entertained him at breakfast in the Town Hall, 
 and here he gave his first public account of what he had seen and heard in 
 the Colonies. His speech on this occasion made a great impression, and, 
 taken in conjunction with the narrative of a redeemed Jamaica Apprentice, 
 whom Sturge had brought back with him, did much to arouse the 
 nation. Town upon town was visited by Mr. Sturge, and his example was 
 followed by many others, including the well-known orator, George 
 Thompson. 
 
 In view of the amount of public feeling which had been awakened, the 
 Anti-Slavery Society held a meeting in Exeter Hall, on the nth July, 
 1837, under the presidency of H.R.H. the Duke of Sussex, and a series of 
 resolutions were adopted, calling upon the provincial Anti-Slavery Societies 
 to reorganise, and send to London the delegates who in 1833 had pledged 
 themselves never to relax their efforts till Slavery had been extinguished in 
 the British Colonies. An Address to the Electors was also issued, calling for 
 the return of an Anti-Slavery House of Commons. 
 
 The Government, however, and the Parliamentary leaders still remained 
 silent, but Mr. Sturge held on his way, utilising the great volume of public 
 opinion which he had awakened. In the month of OctobeP^’ a large gather¬ 
 ing took place at Bath, at which he was present, and resolutions were 
 passed condemning the system of Apprenticeship as but another form of 
 Slavery, and the meeting pledged itself to use every legitimate means for its 
 overthrow. Birmingham followed with a meeting of representatives from 
 various counties, and resolutions similar to those passed at Bath were come 
 
23 
 
 Mr. Sturge then proceeded to arouse the Metropolis, and, armed with 
 the resolutions passed in the provinces, appealed to the country associations 
 to send delegates to London for the purpose of considering the best means 
 of extinguishing the Apprenticeship. To this summons the response was 
 prompt, and on the 14th November 140 gentlemen assembled at Exeter Hall, 
 from every part of the kingdom.Every religious and political creed was 
 represented, and most of the delegates remained in town till the great 
 meeting, held nine days after. 
 
 In view of the activity of the abolitionists, but unknown to them at the 
 time, the Government became alarmed, and on the same day on which the 
 Anti-Slavery Delegates assembled the Colonial Secretary sent out a despatch 
 to the Governors of the Slave Colonies, recommending the Colonial 
 Assemblies and Councils to settle the question of Apprenticeship by voluntary 
 emancipation on the 1st August, 1838.*^^' 
 
 On the 17th November^*^ the Delegates proceeded in a body to Downing 
 Street, where they were met by some 30 Members of Parliament, and laid 
 their views before the Premier (Lord Melbourne). The deputation was 
 assured that due weight would be given to their views, representing as they 
 did the amount of feeling in the country. On the following day the delegates 
 waited on Lord Glenelg, the Colonial Secretary, who guardedly avoided 
 giving any encouragement to the deputation, which retired under the con¬ 
 viction that only the pressure of public opinion would produce any effect 
 upon the Government. On the 23rd November a large meeting was held by 
 the Delegates in Exeter Hall, under the presidency of Sir Eardley Wilmot 
 —and resolutions adopted demanding the abolition of the Apprenticeship 
 system.A Committee to sit in London, under the style and title of the 
 Central Negro Emancipation Committee,was also formed by them to 
 actively carry on the work which had been so favourably started by Mr. Joseph 
 Sturge. Of this Committee the official organ was The British Eman¬ 
 cipator^ which appeared at frequent intervals during the agitation. 
 Having sat for ten consecutive days the delegates, on the 24th, dis¬ 
 persed, and, three daj's after, Lord Glenelg’s reply to the Memorial of the 
 Delegates was received, declining to interfere with the Apprenticeship System, 
 but offering not to oppose the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire 
 into the matter.This meant delay, and was not acceptable to the 
 abolitionists. It was therefore resolved to send agents through the country 
 holding meetings and obtaining Petitions praying for the Abolition of the 
 Apprenticeship. George Thompson, John Scoble, and Dr. Palmer (an 
 ex-Special Justice for Jamaica, who had been dismissed for carrying out the 
 spirit of the Act of 1833, and who was now Secretary of the Central Negro 
 Emancipation Committee), were appointed lecturers, large numbers of 
 meetings being held in the course of a few weeks. The appearance in 
 January, 1838, of “The West Indies in 1837,” by Joseph Sturge and 
 Thomas Harvey, in which the true condition of the Apprentices was clearly 
 and impartially set forth, proved a powerful weapon in the hands of the 
 Anti-Slavery lecturers, and tended to swell the rising tide of public opinion 
 against the system of Slavery known as Apprenticeship. 
 
 In February and March, 1838, the Petitions from the Ladies of England 
 (449,000) and Scotland (135,000) were presented to the Queen at Levees by 
 Deputations, while that from Ireland was presented later in the year.*''’ 
 
 The effect of the agitation was first felt in the West Indies in the Island 
 of Montserrat, where the abolition of the Apprenticeship was unanimously 
 carried by the legislature on the i8th January, 1838, and promulgated on the 
 20th February, decreeing the Abolition of the Apprenticeship on the 1st 
 August ensuing.*"’ The movement received considerable impetus by the 
 adhesion of Lord Brougham and the Marquis of Sligo, late Governor of 
 Jamaica, who in his place in the House of Lords announced his intention of 
 liberating all his apprentices on the 1st August. A union of all sections of the 
 Abolition party was brought about, and Parliamentary action determined on. 
 
 Officinl 
 Report of 
 Meeting. 
 
 (/) Official 
 Report in 
 British 
 Emanapator. 
 
 (S’) British 
 Emancipator, 
 March 21st, 
 and June 13th. 
 1838, also 
 referred to in 
 Return 13th 
 August, 1839. 
 107(5),p.113. 
 
 ()>) British 
 Emancipator. 
 
 ('■) Ibid. 
 
 U) Official 
 Report of 
 Meeting, 
 
 1837- 
 
 (“) Vide 
 Papers 
 ordered by 
 House of 
 Commons, 
 
 9th March, 
 1838, Part V., 
 pp. 7-8. 
 
 (6) British 
 Emancipator. 
 
 (c) President 
 Hamilton to 
 Sir W. G. 
 
 COLEBROOKE 
 British Eman¬ 
 cipator, March 
 2ist, 1838, 
 and Official 
 Papers pre¬ 
 sented 1839. 
 
24 
 
 Minutes. 
 
 t«) British 
 Emancipator, 
 
 (/) Ibid. 
 
 Minutes 
 of Anti- 
 Slavery 
 Society. 
 
 (ft.) British 
 Emancip itor. 
 
 <*' Ibid. 
 
 <jl Ibid. 
 
 A petition from the old Anti-Slavery Committee praying for the abolition of 
 the Apprenticeship was presented to both Houses, and the publication of 
 pamphlets on the Colonial Laws was undertaken.Notices of motion on the 
 question were given by Lord Brougham and Sir E. Wilmot. The former 
 brought forward a series of resolutions on the Slave-trade and the Appren¬ 
 ticeship, but the division was only taken on those dealing with the Slave-trade, 
 and they were defeated. 
 
 The Government at length were forced into action, but this action merely 
 took the form of a Bill in the House of Lords for amending some of the 
 most glaring defects of the Abolition Act. Lord Brougham also introduced 
 a Bill for the abolition of the Apprenticeship, but this was dropped, in view 
 of proceedings in the Lower House. A large meeting was, however, held, 
 under his presidency, in Exeter Hall, on the 14th and 15th March, when a 
 resolution appealing to the Royal prerogative was carried with acclamation. 
 
 The Anti-Slavery Committee, through Mr. Buxton, requested an inter¬ 
 view with Lord Glenelg for the purpose of demanding the abolition of the 
 Apprenticeship system, on the ist August, on the ground of its violation, 
 and the passage of a Code removing any Colonial enactment which might 
 interfere with the negroes on their release, but they obtained nothing 
 definite from Lord Glenelg at the interview. 
 
 The Central Negro Emancipation Committee, in view of the projected 
 discussion in the House of Commons, summoned the delegates again to 
 London, and on the 27th March some 400 gentlemen assembled in Exeter 
 Hall, under the presidency of Mr. W. T. Blair, of Bath.^'‘^ Deputations were 
 at once appointed to wait upon the Premier and Colonial Secretary with a 
 Memorial, whilst to others was deputed the task of soliciting the support 
 of Members of Parliament in the coming debate. Illness prevented Sir 
 Eardley Wilmot proceeding on the 27th, and the motion was brought 
 forward two days later by Sir George Strickland. In the interim the 
 delegates continued their sittings, receiving the friendly support of Mr. 
 Buxton. On the 28th the delegates proceeded to Downing Street, where 
 they were received by Lords Melbourne, Glenelg, and John Russell ; 
 but they retired much dissatisfied, and a petition to the House of 
 Commons was adopted, protesting against the policy of the Government 
 in meeting the resolution of Sir George Strickland by proposing the 
 second reading of Lord Glenelg’s Bill for Amending the Abolition Act. 
 
 On the 29th, Sir George Strickland moved :— 
 
 “ That the House is of opinion that the Apprenticeship in the British West Indies 
 as established by the Act of Abolition passed in the year 1833 shall cease and deter¬ 
 mine on the ist August in the present year.” 
 
 Mr. Joseph Pease seconded the motion, and then Sir George Grey 
 (Under-Secretary for the Colonies) proposed the Government amendment 
 above referred to, and the second reading of Lord Glenelg’s Bill was 
 carried, on the following Friday, by 269 votes to 215. 
 
 In consequence of this defeat, the delegates at their sitting on the 31st 
 March at once resolved upon a public meeting at Exeter Hall, and the 
 Central Negro Emancipation Committee at once arranged for meetings in 
 the provinces. Adjourning over Sunday, the delegates sat again on the 
 2nd and 3rd April, transacting formal business, and on the 4th, under the 
 presidency of the Marquis of Clanricarde, a large public meeting 
 assembled in Exeter Hall, and resolutions denying the existence of any 
 contract which might restrain the British public from seeking the immediate 
 abolition of the Apprenticeship system were adopted. 
 
 On the 5th April the Delegates issued a strong protest against Lord 
 Glenelg’s Bill, on the ground of its unconstitutional character, its 
 injudicious policy, and danger to the peace, stability, and prosperity of the 
 Colonies. The majority then returned to the country, the others remaining 
 in town to take immediate action, if necessary. Meetings were also being 
 held throughout the kingdom by the various local Anti-Slavery Societies, 
 
2 ; 
 
 important gatherings taking place at Liverpool, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Leeds, 
 etc. At a large town’s meeting at Birmingham, under the presidency 
 of the High Bailiff, the cause of the negro was again forcibly pleaded by Mr. 
 Sturge.^'^* 
 
 Now that the country was thoroughly aroused, the Central Negro 
 Emancipation Committee resolved upon further Parliamentary action, and 
 to Sir Eardley Wilmot was entrusted a motion for the 22nd May, to the 
 ■effect :— 
 
 “ That the Negro Apprenticeship in the Colonies shall immediately cease and 
 determine.” 
 
 Prior to the discussion, some 300 of the delegates returned to town,'^’ in 
 order to await the result of the motion, which, after a short, but spirited, 
 debate, was carried by ninety-six votes to ninety-three. Mr. C. P. Villiers, 
 who seconded the motion, is still a member of the House of Commons. 
 
 Lord John Russell at once announced the intention of the Government 
 to move that the resolution be rescinded, and it became necessary that 
 it should be known in the West Indies that the House of Commons 
 had resolved on the abolition of the Apprenticeship system before the 
 tidings of a second, and possibly hostile, division should be received there. 
 Dr. Palmer therefore immediately despatched letters to all the ports from 
 which vessels were likely to sail, and some of these reached their destination 
 in the West Indies several days previous to the receipt of the Government 
 ■despatches. 
 
 On the 25th May a crowded meeting, under the presidency of Lord 
 Brougham, took place at Exeter Hall, at which it was declared that Lord 
 John Russell’s threatened hostility loudly called for the renewed and 
 continued exertions of the friends of the negroes—exertions which would never 
 be relaxed until the negroes in the Colonies were released, and made equal 
 before the law.^’*’ 
 
 On the 28th May, Sir George Grey moved :— 
 
 “ That in order to prevent the injurious consequences which may follow from the 
 intentions of Parliament being left in doubt, and in order to maintain the peace and 
 welfare of the Colonies, it is necessary to declare that, in the opinion of the House, it 
 is not advisable to adopt any proceeding for the purpose of giving effect to the 
 Resolution of the 22nd May.” 
 
 Sir E. Wilmot moved as an amendment :— 
 
 “ That it is the opinion of this House, that the Resolution passed on the 22nd of 
 May should be carried into effect by means of a legislative enactment, due provision 
 being made to secure the peace of the Colonies, and to promote the w'elfare and good 
 conduct of the Negro Population, on their attaining the full enjoyment of their entire 
 freedom.” 
 
 On a division, the Government triumphed by 250 to 178 votes. 
 
 On the following day the delegates protested, in a series of resolutions, 
 against the action of the Government and their supporters,and declared 
 that as the recent decision of the House of Commons, by disappointing the 
 hopes of the negro, had placed in imminent peril the safety of the Colonies, 
 it was necessary to declare their solemn conviction that, should any disastrous 
 consequence ensue, the responsibility would rest upon Her Majesty’s Ministers, 
 and that the nation having appealed in vain to the justice of her represen¬ 
 tatives on behalf of the oppressed, an additional obligation was created to 
 continue with increased energy the use of every lawful means, both in the 
 country and the Colonies, until Slavery in reality, as well as in name, was 
 utterly abolished. They therefore determined upon largely increasing the 
 number of Anti-Slavery Societies. 
 
 On the 9th June*''* the Anti-Slavery Committee waited upon Lord Glenelg, 
 urging the abolition of the Apprenticeship by the Imperial Parliament on 
 the 1st August, but to this his lordship would not agree, neither would he 
 
 (fe) /did. 
 
 0 /Sid. 
 
 (>"■) Memoir 
 of Richard 
 Allen. 
 
 (») British 
 Emancipator. 
 
 British 
 
 Emancipator. 
 
 Minutes 
 of Anti- 
 Slavery 
 Society. 
 
26 
 
 accede to the appointment of a Commission to investigate the working of 
 the Colonial Laws, consequent upon the Act of 1833, 
 
 But whilst the Government in England were hostile, the local assemblies 
 were in no mood to face another Anti-Slavery struggle, and one after 
 another, on becoming alive to the seriousness of affairs, especially after the 
 vote of the House of Commons in favour of abolition, passed local Acts 
 abolishing the Apprenticeship on the ist August, 1838, thus shortening by 
 two years the duration of the system as enacted by Parliament in 1833. 
 Mauritius alone took no action, and the Imperial Government were com¬ 
 pelled to issue an Order in Council, abolishing the system in March, 1839. 
 
 J. EASTOE TEALL. 
 
 55, New Broad Street, London, E.C. 
 
 L. E. Newnham & Co., Printers, 12, Finsbury Street, E.C. 
 
Extracts from the 
 
 CONSTITUTION 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Britisl] ai]d foreign yVnti - Slavery Society. 
 
 (FOUNDED IN 1839.) 
 
 I. That the name of this Society be “The British and Foreign 
 Anti-Slavery Society.” 
 
 II. That the objects of this Society be, The Universal Extinction of 
 Slavery and the Slave-Trade, and the Protection of the Rights and 
 Interests of the Enfranchised Population in the British Possessions, 
 
 AND OF ALL PERSONS CAPTURED AS SlAVES. 
 
 III. That the following shall be the fundamental principles of the 
 Society : — 
 
 That, so long as Slavery exists, there is no reasonable prospect of the 
 annihilation of the Slave-trade, and of extinguishing the sale and barter of 
 human , beings ; that the extinction of Slavery and the Slave-trade will be 
 attained most effectually by the employment of those means which are of a 
 moral, religious, and pacific character ; and that no measures be resorted to 
 by this Society, in the prosecution of these objects, but such as are in entire 
 accordance with these principles. 
 
 IV. That the following be among the means to be employed by this 
 Society :— 
 
 I. To circulate, both at home and abroad, accurate information on the 
 enormities of the Slave-trade and Slavery; to furnish evidence to the 
 inhabitants of Slave-holding countries, not only of the practicability, but of 
 the pecuniary advantage of free labour ; to diffuse authentic intelligence 
 respecting the results of emancipation in Hayti, the British Colonies, and 
 elsewhere ; to open a correspondence with Abolitionists in America, France, 
 and other countries ; and to encourage them in the prosecution of these 
 objects by all methods consistent with the principles of this Society. 
 
 3. To obtain the unequivocal recognition of the principle that the Slave, 
 of whatever clime or colour, entering any portion of the British dominions, 
 shall be free, the same as upon the shores of the United Kingdom ; and to 
 carry this principle into full and complete effect. 
 
 4. To recommend that every suitable opportunity be embraced for 
 evincing, in our intercourse with Slaveholders and their apologists, our 
 abhorrence of the system which they uphold, and our sense of its utter 
 incompatibility with the spirit of the Christian religion. 
 
 V. That every person who subscribes not less than Ten Shillings 
 annually or makes a donation of Five Pounds or upwards, shall be a Member 
 of this Society. 
 
Jl**"' 
 
 ,, I ^ 
 
 
 <■ V 
 
 .■ '* 
 
 A -4 *■ : 
 
 i*' 
 
 •v 
 
 
 ’ 1 
 
 /nri r^r^-^/''^) > 
 
 u » 
 
 b • 
 
 I f 4. 
 
 
 ♦• '^•> 4 , 4 *./.A 
 
 I V. 
 
 
 
 
 
 'V',;;^ n>*'t <1? /. Af^r '*,4 w i •./jit if 
 
 1^"*' . ' ' ^ ‘-1!^ » |1 ^ 3 
 
 ' '‘I*; Hi A 
 
 
 '-1 v*^*? *« ..»' 'jw ‘ ^ flri^’t'lH *1 Vm*! . 
 
 ...I ^, .44 ■» tl* t . . t ' ^.''^ • 
 
 ' ■ '“ ''I ' J-/I.'*! it /4 ^ I A ' .2 
 
 1^ ,.^ r* /f '’-' n'rrrv /'’.M 
 
 t».j<^k..'i«j-i'£ii(ii'niiij<(fT '!,{. t't iljuU ’O 
 
 
 I' »‘ I ' ■ i_i' 
 
 oil* t» Im] 
 
 * ‘ . ■•> ' 
 
 ■//■• ,'r 
 
 -4. rj‘u, ■ . ii A .yyiJT/Jli' ‘ 1| 
 
 u. «l« 14 (A,l 
 
 ' <■''t-'ij*l oft *' ,.j'i 
 
 iriwc'’J»."^ ■* jc* V , , 1 , 
 
 - •• 
 
 • l^tl' • 
 
 »♦ 
 
 .r* 
 
 
 ■* ^ ^ 
 
 -»l i ** < 
 
 » ' if » 
 
 s’ i • ^’^lil. ‘ ^ . 114 '* *♦ i(^- 
 
 ' lE, 
 
 (i\J At* t« 4 ifk 'r'Hjrwy»Vir^j-V • ^ 
 
 -• r-| mi ‘ll i ■■ '■** 
 
 .».• . ,. 
 
 'V. 
 
 .M 
 
 ftlj fV< 
 
 ^ ,Vtf *>< 
 
 'HMH 
 
 
 4 i^f V: 
 
 '.T 
 
 , *7' 
 
 ■A ■-*■*1 
 
 'C/^ 
 
 . ; »*iwj •._ ■ iiru< ;7<'i ’ ‘ t 
 
 *' ■>\~.- •' : »fw"S_* -'A’-f. 7I (-.v/ 
 
 Aifti tc'jf ,'*4 *v» ft(5' 4 Mi/#i>A4 AMi mfj'jjj * 
 
 ,in^H<tJnr»4wUi4i^ '{f :<. 6rju,-4ii.'^ • ■,» » .* '• ,TM^viyl4ililf*' 
 
 *4 ■ <*»#»/ . * *>tr n -I? 
 
 . ■ *• KJillf.iy jr., ^ 4J["| ».j; 
 
 4 ') 0 t MMI/fyi vTo - p* (•')• *'Ut‘ 
 
 '(iJ? * ,di ^ «j 
 
 ' - 
 
 »kA» 
 
 IJtDl, ■>. I.l•».^l,•.^ , ■ -*'■ 
 
 # » 
 
 '‘‘'4/9'/^"’'' ^ 
 
 T |V(!. ^ ■ •^. 
 
 VC . ^ : 
 
 - ‘i * 
 
 MS 
 
 ' • * 
 
 ■>*'4 
 
1897 . 
 
 Britieb anb Jforcion Huti^^Slavcr^ Society. 
 
 H.R.H. Th e PRINCE of WALES 
 
 PRESIDENT. 
 
 ARTHUR PEASE, Esq., M.P. 
 
 VICE-PRESIDENT. 
 
 SIR THOMAS POWELL BUXTON, Bart., K.C.M.G. 
 
 TREASURER. 
 
 JOSEPH ALLEN, Esq. 
 
 COMMITTEE. 
 
 ARTHUR ALBRIGHT, Esg. 
 
 J. G. ALEXANDER, Esq., LL.B. 
 
 WILLIAM ALLEN, Esq. 
 
 W. WILBERFORCE BAYNES, Esq. 
 
 G. BINYON, Esq. 
 
 J. BEVAN BRAITHWAITE, Esq. 
 
 E. WRIGHT BROOKS, Esg. 
 
 CEPHAS BUTLER, Esq. 
 
 SYDNEY BUXTON, Esg., M.P. 
 
 lOEL CADBURY, Esg. I 
 
 FREDERICK CASH, Esg. 
 
 JAMES CLARK, Esq. 
 
 I. V. CRAWFORD, Esg., late Consul in Cuba. 
 Dr. R. N. CUST, F.R.G.S. 
 
 R. W. FELKIN, Esq., M.D., F.R.G.S. 
 
 Sir FREDERIC GOLDSMID, K.C.S.I. 
 HENRY GURNEY, Esg. 
 
 D. HACK, Esq. 
 
 EDWARD HARRISON, Esg. 
 
 CALEB R. KEMP, Esg. 
 
 CORRESPOND! 
 
 Mows. THE BISHOP OF ADRUMETUM. 
 Rt. Rev. THE BISHOP OF EASTERN 
 EQUATORIAL AFRICA. 
 
 G. T. ABRINES, Esg., Tangier, Morocco. 
 FRANK ALLEN, Esg., Alexandria. 
 
 B. R. BALFOUR, Esg., Drogheda. 
 
 T. H. BARKER, Esg., Liverpool. 
 
 Hon. H. a. BOVELL, LL.B., Brit. Guiana. 
 THEODORE BURTT, Esg. 
 
 Hon. and Rev. H. CLARK, Jamaica. 
 Professor E. DESCAMPS, Louvain. 
 
 Prof. H. DRUMMOND, F.R.S.E., Glasgow. 
 WILLIAM HARVEY, Esg., Ilkley. 
 
 Captain E. C. HORE, South Seas. 
 
 G.P. H UNOT, Esg., British Vice-Consul, Saffee 
 NOEL TEMPLE MOORE, Esg., C.M.G., 
 H.B.M. Consul-General, Tripoli. 
 
 A. J. MORASSO, Esg., Tangier. 
 
 Captain H. NEEDHAM KNOX, R.N. 
 
 J. H. LLOYD, Esg. 
 
 DONALD MACKENZIE, Esg. 
 
 W. CAREY MORGAN, Esg. 
 
 JOHN MORLAND, Esg. 
 
 ALFRED E. PEASE, Esg. 
 
 JOSEPH A. PEASE, Esg., M.P. 
 ARNOLD PYE-SMITH, Esg. 
 
 FRANCIS RECKITT, Esg. 
 
 RICHARD SHORE, Esq. 
 
 J. FYFE STEWART, Esg. 
 
 Rev. R. WARDLAW THOMPSON. 
 Dr. E. UNDERHILL. 
 
 Rev. j. O. WHITEHOUSE. 
 
 Rev. j. H. WILSON, D.D. 
 
 W. H. WYLDE, Esg., C.M.G. (late of the 
 Foreign Office Slave-Trade Department'). 
 Rev. j. C. YARBOROUGH. 
 
 T. GRAHAM YOUNG, Esg. 
 
 NG MEMBERS. 
 
 WILLIAM MORGAN, Esg., Shawford. 
 
 G. MOYNIER, Esg., Geneva. 
 
 Senhor IOAQUIM NABUCO, Brazil. 
 Prof. EDOUARD NAVILLE, Geneva. 
 
 Rev. PERE OHRWALDER, Cairo. 
 
 J. A. PAYNE, Esg., Lagos, W. .Africa. 
 
 Dr. PRUEN, Cheltenham. 
 
 Comte de ST. GEORGE, Geneva. 
 
 Dr. G. SCHWEINFURTH, Cairo. 
 
 Rev. W. G. SHELLABEAR, Singapore. 
 SLATIN PASH.A, Cairo. 
 
 Don LUIS SORELA, Spain. 
 
 M. LE Comte D’URSEL, Brussels. 
 
 Rev. E. VANORDEN, Rio Grande do Sul. 
 M. COURTOIS DE VICOSE, Toulouse. 
 W. J. WILSON, Esg., Cairo. 
 
 Major WINGATE, R.E., C.B., Cairo. 
 
 A. B. WYLDE, E.sg. 
 
 SECRETARY. 
 
 CHARLES H. ALLEN, F.R.G.S. 
 
 Assistant Secretary : J. EASTOE TEALL. 
 
 JBantfCrd: Messrs. Bakci.av, Bevan. Trttton & Co., 54, Lombard Street. 
 
 Offices; W>, NEW BROAD STREET, LONDON, E.C.