Page images

two witnesses to establish verbal "tadbir." In this case, as th question hinged upon a point of law, I contented myself wit advising the complainant to appeal to the Chief Native Court; an the Judicial Officer having, in conjunction with two Mahommeda Assessors, ruled that two respectable witnesses were requisite prove verbal "tadbir," and that only one had been produce reversed the decision of the Lower Court, and awarded the appella the pecuniary value of the slaves.

Several cases were brought before me by persons whose slaves ha run away from them and joined the Witu outlaws, and who claime that, as they themselves had remained loyal and stayed in the In these cases homes, their slaves should not have been freed. refused to entertain the idea of compensation, pointing out that the should have taken steps to prevent their slaves from running away Witu, or should have put forward claims to their ownership at th time of the general confiscation of all slaves found with the Wit rebels.

Great suffering and hardship, especially to old or infirm person and to minors, is often caused by the careless emancipation of leg slaves, who in this country are still often their only property; and have urged on Mr. Rogers the importance of making absolute certain of illegal ownership before actually issuing papers freedom, as, if owners claim and get damages for wrongful co fiscation upon appeal, much unnecessary expense may be incurre by us. I have the honour to inclose herewith the Acting Su Commissioner's despatch, giving the actual sums paid in all thes



The Marquess of Salisbury.

(Inclosure.)- Mr. MacDougall to Sir A. Hardinge.


Lamu, December 29, 189

I HAVE the honour to inform you that, in accordance with you instructions to compensate various persons resident in Lamu ar Patta, for slaves belonging to them, who had obtained papers freedom inadvertently by the local Administration

Bwana Kitini of Patta was paid 350 rupees as compensation fo five slaves, at an average rate of 70 rupees each, which rate wɛ fixed by the Livali and the Kathi, and which is considered mos reasonable in accordance with local conditions.

Mohamed-bin-Omari Mataka was paid 1,400 rupees compensatio for twenty slaves, at the same average rate of 70 rupees each, and compensation of 105 rupees for three aged slaves, at an average rat of 35 rupees each.

The same person applied for compensation for another slave, who obtained his freedom on the score of his having been at Jongeni. I, towever, declined to entertain such an application, on the ground at the slave in question was not confiscated, that he was merely reated in common with others, who had been found to have been actively assisting persons who had rebelled against Her Majesty's


With regard to various other claims made by Mohamed-binmari, such as for a stone house, grain, &c.: so far as I understand, he house referred to had been sold by public auction in satisfaction of a small claim against Omari-bin-Mataka; the balance of the meeeds had been duly refunded to the defendant; as regards "the grain, I have been informed by the Wali of Siu that it was ither appropriated by the slaves themselves or left to decay in the elds.

With regard to Mwana Esha's claim for compensation for twelve ares belonging to her, who obtained letters of freedom contrary to 3, the Acting Judicial Officer of the Chief Native Court, in oing through the case when at Lamu, found that a single witness of verbal “tadbir” was illegal by "sheria," and therefore ordered that the appellant be paid compensation for only six slaves, to which she was entitled by "sheria;" the sum of 420 rupees was therefore paid to her, being an average of 70 rupees per slave. With reference to the claim of Fatima-binti-Bwana Fumo, you are already aware that it had been settled anterior to your departure from Lamu for 400 rupees, and this amount will be recovered from the witnesses who gave false evidence before the Court, namely, Banonge and Hamis, the Headmen of the said slaves.

As desired, I have been especially careful in awarding compensation only for slaves inadvertently freed in the Zanzibar dominions, who had been born anterior to the Proclamation of His Highness Said Khalifa, dated the 1st January, 1890.

Sir A. Hardinge.

I have, &c.,

Her Majesty's Acting Sub-Commissioner.

No. 23.—Sir A. Hardinge to the Marquess of Salisbury.—(Received March 18.)


Mombasa, February 9, 1899.

I HAVE the honour to transmit herewith a copy of a letter which the Rev. H. K. Binns, of the Church Missionary Society, has asked, on behalf of Bishop Tucker, may be published as an answer to certain despatches of my own in "Africa, No. 6 (1898)," respecting

the attitude of the missionaries in this Protectorate towards th question of Mahommedan domestic slavery, more especially wit reference to the reception by the Missions of fugitive slaves.

I have at the same time the honour to transmit a copy of m reply to this letter, and to express a hope that it may be given equ publicity with the latter, should your Lordship see fit to acced to Mr. Binns' request.

The Marquess of Salisbury.


(Inclosure 1.)-The Rev. H. Binns to Sir A, Hardinge.

Freretown, Mombasa,
December 7, 1898


BISHOP TUCKER has called my attention to a letter of your in Blue Book, "Africa, No. 6, 1899," which is dated Zanziba the 5th July, 1897, especially with regard to your remarks o the action of the missionaries in these parts in the matter o runaway slaves.

I may say at the outset that the missionaries of the Society hav never encouraged "slaves to leave their masters and settle o Mission lands by better terms than any native land-owner coul afford to offer them." The missionaries have never been in a positio to make terms with runaway slaves, neither have they had any lan offered them.

The only place where any considerable amount of land belongs to the Society is at Freretown, where this trouble has not arisen. A Rabai only a small piece of land-that originally granted by the Rabai Elders to the Mission-together with a few small patches purchased for the occupation of African cultivators who were brought from a Government farm in India, has been claimed by the Mission.

The missionaries, inyself included, have done their utmost to prevent these people from coming to the Mission stations, and have sent hundreds away. On the other hand, it is clear that during the years the Rev. N. H. Jones was in charge, large numbers were allowed to settle in the immediate neighbourhood, and they cultivated waste lands between Kisulutini and the Duruma country, and these became assimilated amongst the adherents of the Mission. Over the land thus cultivated the authorities of the Mission had absolutely no control.

A slave coming from any of the neighbouring coast towns was never knowingly allowed to settle near the Mission premises in my time; those who came from Giryama were allowed to remain, as Sir John Kirk told us slavery amongst the Wanyika was not recognized by any Treaty.

Many undoubtedly came under false pretences, and it was impossible for the missionaries to find out their antecedents.

You infer that the Missionary Societies have used their capital and influence in unfair competition. I beg to say, with regard to the Church Missionary Society, it has no capital-its funds consist entirely of voluntary contributions; if this income is what jon mean, allow me to say that not one single pice of this capital as ever been used in the way you infer, neither is it available r such purposes.

You will find that the majority of children we have ever had in ur schools at Rabai are the children of Wanyika. I cannot call to and a single family of children of coast slaves.

It is quite true that all who came were expected to conform ⠀ certain rules and send their children to school, but numbers f these were not slaves at all.

! You write: "The Imperial British East Africa Company necked it, not without many unpleasant disputes, by compelling he Missions to restore slaves who were claimed by their masters.' beg to say that the Mission never has been, never could be, compelled to restore (that is, to be the active instrument in restoring) daves who were claimed by their masters. All the Imperial British East Africa Company did was to send up an askari or two with the owners of the slave claimed to bring him down if found; this liberty has never been denied to any one. Before the advent of the Company, the slave-owners were at liberty to come to take their laves if they wished. Very few, certainly, availed themselves of the liberty, but some did; they were mostly afraid, as they were afraid to go to Makongeni and other runaway-slave towns, as the Laves stand by one another, not that they would be sheltered by the missionary. I have myself seen some slaves taken away, and I ould not legally prevent it, though I should like to have done *; sometimes I have had to protect the masters.

You infer, also, that the rebellion of 1895-96 was in some way connected with the runaway-slave question. I believe it arose olely out of a dispute as to the Governorship of Takaungu. Previously Mbarak had been on friendly terms with us. Missionaries tad entertained him and his followers at Rabai on several occasions, and met him in other places. His rebellion at this time was against Europeans generally, and I think I may safely say that the Government had nowhere such loyal adherents as on the Mission stations, and we were applied to for guides and other helpers who could be trusted, and officers, both naval and military, have spoken in high terms of their faithfulness.

[ocr errors]

The missionaries have not been, in any large sense, employers of labour; the populations of our stations have been free to serve

under whatever master they might choose, and have so served porters, askaris, &c., for Government and others, or to return their masters, as many did.

Many lazy vagabond slaves no doubt there are, as there a many free men who deserve similar epithets; these characters hav not found chartered sanctuaries on the Mission lands: on th contrary, such slaves have always been expelled from lands ove which the Mission had any control.

As to slaves running away, the matter is entirely in the hands the Government, which has its officers all over the country; but slaves did not commence running away from their masters on th advent of the missionaries (thousands living in the forests lon previously), it is not likely that they will cease to run away now and they must go somewhere.

The action of Her Majesty's Government in capturing an liberating slaves upon the high seas (there is no record of slave running away to the Missions previous to this, though they ra away to go elsewhere) placed every white man in the country i a false position; he was looked upon as a friend of the slave, and, t a certain extent, was bound to pose as such, and yet he could d little to help them in a lawful way: hence our hands have been, to certain extent, forced, and as our sympathies have always been wit the slaves, it is not difficult to see how this matter of runaway slave reached such large proportions and became such a complex questionit can only find its solution in the total abolition of slavery.

It is an easy matter for you and the slave-owners to lay all thes troubles at the missionaries' door; but what about the slaves who run away to go elsewhere-what about the hundreds who joine Mbarak, or those at Makongeni, and other similar places, or those who go up as porters and never return to their masters, and whe eventually reach the towns in the German territory? I think in common justice, you ought to say that the slave will run away whether the missionary receives him or not, and has been doing so for generations; and allow me to add my conviction, apart from the legal question, that it is better that the slave should go to the Mission than elsewhere; he is thereby helped to be a better man, as can be proved by hundreds of cases, and therefore a more useful member of society.

May I ask you to give this letter equal publicity with that of yours to which have referred ?

I am sending copies to the Bishops and to the head-quarters the Society.

Sir A. Hardinge.

I beg, &c.,


« PreviousContinue »