| 1. From January 1st, 1900, when the Administration was transferred from the Royal Niger Company to the Imperial Government, up to April 1st, 1901, the only legislation regarding slavery was the decree of the Royal Niger Company abolishing the “Legal Status.” To explain the attitude of Government, and the action which should be taken by Residents, several Memoranda had been issued prior to the enactment of “The Slavery Proclamation” of March 31st, 1901, and these were superseded by fresh instructions consequent on that Proclamation. The enactment of “The Slavery Proclamation, 1904,” repealing that of 1901, offers an occasion for again revising these Memoranda, which are therefore cancelled. | 1. Action prior to October, 1904 |
| 2. The observations I am about to make in this Memorandum apply almost exclusively to the Mohammedan States. They may be applicable in some degree to the few non-Moslem communities whom I have classed in the first group in Memo. 5, pares. 57-58, but among the uncivilized Pagan tribes, who have practically no social grades, there is no excuse at all for the system of slavery, and full effect can be given to the law with a view to abolishing altogether the servile status where it exists among them. The “Buzai” of the Asbenawa,2 however, appear to be rather a feudatory clan than slaves in the proper sense of the term, but the “Rengi”3 of North Borgu, though occupying villages with chiefs of their own, would seem to be more rightly described as Fulani Slaves. | 2. Chiefly Applicable to Moslems. |
| 3. It is not unfrequently urged (especially by those who are new to Africa) that Slavery is an institution well suited to the African, affording conditions under which he is, as a rule, happy, and that its supersession is a mistake. It is not possible in the compass of this Memo, to adequately discuss the reasons which have led thinking men to condemn the system of slavery, but the following are, in brief, among the principal ones. In the first place, slavery cannot be maintained without a supply of slaves, acquired under all the horrors of slave-raids, and transported with great loss of life from their original habitation; this results, not only in much human suffering, but also in a decrease of the population, and consequently in a decrease of the productive capacity of the country; secondly, no people can ever progress if personal initiative and personal responsibility is denied to them, as is the case with the slave class. That existing slaves may be happy in their lot is no argument to the mind of anyone who aims at the progress of the race in a remoter future. | 3. Reasons why slavery is a bad system |
| 4. Section 2 of the Proclamation abolishes the “legal status.” This means that, in the eye of the law, property in persons (as slaves is not recognized, and that a “slave” is accounted to be personally responsible for his acts, and competent to give evidence in Court. The institution of Domestic Slavery is not thereby abolished, as would be done by a decree of general emancipation, and, while as a matter of fact it gives a slave means of asserting his freedom, it does not constitute it an offence for a native to own slaves.4 A master is not compelled to dismiss his slaves, and, so long as the two work harmoniously together, the law does not interfere with their relations towards each other. A slave has, however, the power of asserting his freedom at any time, for, if he leaves his master, the latter can enforce no claim to seize him, and is actionable if he resorts to force. It should not be made a necessary antecedent to the recognition of freedom that a slave should claim his freedom before a British Court, and be able to show proper means of subsistence if liberated. This has been done elsewhere in Africa, with the practical effect of nullifying the law. The right of a slave to assert his freedom when the Legal status is abolished cannot be made dependent on such conditions, and no such limitation (not sanctioned by the law) can be legally enforced. The attempt to thus restrict the operation of the law appears to me to be neither logical nor just, for since the law does not recognise the Status of Slavery, it cannot detain a man in that status pending its own act of liberation. | 4. Meaning of the term “Legal Status” |
| 5. If, however, slaves were to be encouraged to assert their freedom unnecessarily in large numbers, or if those so asserting it, by leaving their masters without some good cause, were indiscriminately upheld in their action by Political Officers, a state of anarchy and chaos would result, and the whole social system of the Mohammedan States would be dislocated. It might even become necessary to legalise the institution under some other name, as, apparently, has been done in Southern Nigeria. It is, moreover, hardly necessary to point out that such a sudden repudiation of their obligations to their employers by the mass of the slave population would involve equal misery to the slaves and to their masters. The former would have no immediate means of livelihood, while the latter would be reduced to beggary, and to detestation of British rule which had brought this result about. The great cities would be filled with vagrants, criminals, and prostitutes; even now the large majority of the criminal class consists of runaway slaves. Moreover, to prematurely abolish the almost universal form of labour contract, before a better system had been developed to take its place, would not only be an act of administrative folly, but would be an injustice to the masters, since Domestic Slavery is an institution sanctioned by the law of Islam, and property in slaves was as real as any other form of property among the Mohammedan population at the time that the British assumed the Government, a nullification of which would amount to nothing less than wholesale confiscation. This is equally true of both household and farm slaves. The status of the latter differs from that of household slaves, and they appear to be rather serfs attached to the soil than slaves, that is to say, they have certain rights as regards produce, the houses they live in, and the hours or days during which they are allowed to work for themselves. Their status, privileges and duties are fully examined and described in Memo.22, §2&4. It is important that these farm slaves or serfs should not leave their traditional employment in agriculture, and be induced to flock into the big cities as “free” vagrants without means of subsistence. Residents will therefore do their best to discourage wholesale assertion of “freedom” by such persons, pointing out to them, when occasion arises, the liberality, and from some points of view in present circumstances, the advantages of the form of labour contract under which they serve. | 5. Reasons Against the Wholesale assertion of freedom. |
| 6. In a country in which (a) vast areas of fertile and well watered land are lying uncultivated, and (b) the needs of the peasantry are so small, while field labour is largely done by women as well as men, and (c) the fertility of the soil is such that it produces the small requirements of primitive man with the very minimum of labour, it is conceivable that no class need necessarily be dependent for its livelihood on employment for wages, since every able-bodied man (or woman) could, with a few day’s labour, build a hut and plant sufficient to maintain himself for a year. What then should induce him to remain as a serf or slave on his master’s land, and render a portion of the products of his field to him, or even to work for hire as a labourer? Under the old régime he was compelled to do so by force, for, if he ran away, he would be recaptured, and no one could farm land except under the protection of the powerful. Secondly, the conquerors vested all rights in land in themselves, and, therefore, no peasant could reclaim waste land, and build a new village, without permission. But the security to life and property, and the protection afforded to slaves equally with others by Government, offer a strong inducement to farm slaves to leave their masters, and form new communities. They are no longer certain to be recaptured, while the rights of the Fulani in the land have, in theory, been transferred to Government as the Suzerain Power. It has thus become possible for farm slaves to desert, and migrating to distant places to make new villages, or to become traders on their own account. | 6. Inducement to farm slaves to assert freedom |
| 7. Under these circumstances, it would, at first sight, seem strange that so large a proportion of the slave class are still content to remain in their former status, and that Government is able to obtain so large a supply of labour for wages. The reasons are, I think, to be found in a variety of causes. The adaptability to circumstances, and disinclination to change, which prompt an African to remain as he is and as his fathers were before him; the facility with which the Native acquires a desire for clothing, improved food, and other things procurable for money; his natural aptitude for work; and, I will add, his love of being associated with the ruling race, whether as slave or free labourer, are all causes which operate to make him a contented serf, or, if free, an industrious wage-earner | 7. Counter tendencies. |
| 8. Thus Government, by the very act of introducing security for life and property, and by throwing open fertile lands to cultivation, adds to the difficulty of the problem it has to solve, namely, the creation of a labouring class to till the lands of the ruling classes. The eventual solution lies, to a large extent, in the application of the principles laid down in the Memo. On taxation, and in the enforcement of proprietary rights in land. The Fief-holder, with rights of property in the person and the labour of his peasantry, is replaced by a District Headman, who is merely a Government official, responsible for the collection of a reasonable payment to the State-a payment made by each individual according to his means, and not through a master or owner. All communities will alike pay taxes, and these taxes, being devoted in part to the Revenue, and in part to the Native Rulers, will, together with the profits and rentals of their private estates, provide the latter with the means of engaging free labour; while the classes, who by trade or especial industry have acquired wealth, will equally be able to pay for the labour they need. The causes I have named will, and do, operate strongly and increasingly to form a class willing to work for wages. These, it appears to me, are, in brief, the embryonic conditions from which an early stage of civilization is evolved. At a later stage the pressure of population, leaving no fertile lands unoccupied, adds the most powerful impulse of all to force the peasant population to earn their livelihood by working for wages. Nor is it possible (as has been said by Sir John Kirk,5 the greatest living authority on the subject) for slave-labour and free-labour to exist side by side, and I foresee that the cultivation of the estates of the upper classes by slave-labour cannot last long. It is not the policy of Government to hasten, but rather to retard, this inevitable outcome, in order to prevent the estates of the upper classes from going out of cultivation (with a consequent dislocation of the social fabric) and to give these classes time to realise the situation, and to substitute free labour for their failing supply of slave-labour. This means which may be adopted to arrest too rapid a change are dealt with in paras. 13 and 14. Residents will do well to point these tendencies to the upper classes, and show them how inevitable it is that the results I have described will come to pass. | 8. Free Labour; how evolved |
| 9. Meanwhile, another result is already becoming manifest. The slave-owner, realising that he is powerless to retain or to recapture his slaves by force finds it necessary to treat them in such a way as to induce them to stay of their own free will. Their condition is thus improved, and the way is paved for the ultimate change to free labour. “The result (writes Major Burdon6) is that the existing slaves, having no longer the fear of sale or transfer away from the connections they have made, have become more contented, and less inclined to runaway; and on the other hand, the masters having no longer the power to sell, nor the fear of confiscation or desertion, have come to treat their slaves more as part of the family. Desertion has become less common, and the formerly prevalent custom of deserting in order to seek Government employ is now very rare.” Similar reports reach me form Kano, Yola, and many other Provinces. | 9. Amelioration of condition during transitional period |
| 10. In order to assist the native proprietor to adapt himself to the new regime, it is necessary to explain to him the practical advantage of free labour over slave labour; in the theory, it is probable that he will evince less interest, and it will suffice him to know that it is the outcome of British rule, to which he must, perforce, accommodate himself. The practical advantage to him lies in the fact that, whereas the British Courts lend him no assistance in compelling his slave to do his proper day’s work, or in punishing him if he runs away—while the assistance of the Native Courts is but a very precarious one—he can, if he employs free labour, obtain the full assistance of the Administration in enforcing the contract, and punishing its breach, and it should be explained to him how he should enter into a contract enforceable at law. It is not necessary that such contracts (in order to be legally enforceable) should be in writing. A verbal undertaking in the presence of witnesses is sufficient, and it may be enforced either by a Provincial or by a Native Court. It is, however, necessary in the first place to educate both the upper and the servile classes to the idea of a free-labour contract between master and servant. The Mohammedan Chiefs, whether in the Fulani Emirates or in Bornu, are already familiar with the idea of a contract, and merchants already engage free labour by contract for the transport of their goods. Government, by the employment of labourers on a free contract system, and Government officials and other Europeans, by the engagement of free domestic servants, have already familiarised the idea to many thousands of the labouring class throughout the country. The substitution, therefore, of this system for domestic slavery should not be a difficult one. The chief difficulty seems to be to provide the employers of labour with sufficient cash to pay their employees a weekly or monthly wage; for, if payment be in kind only, the servant is unable to save his wages to purchase when and what he likes, and is dependent on instalments as they become available at arbitrary valuations. In fact, the conditions approximate to the slavery system. Here again, I see reasons for thinking that the difficulty is one which is rapidly decreasing. The existing cowrie currency and the rapid spread of coinage, the fixing of rents and taxes payable in currency, and the increase in wealth due to development and progress under British rule, will, I trust, enable the master to meet his obligations to his servants in the same way that he sees the British Officials doing. Nor is the difference great between the free labour and the slave labour contract in the case of farm slaves, since sale, already greatly restricted by the Koran, is now illegal under Protectorate law. It amounts to hardly more than a difference in method, rather than in principle. Instead of allowing the slave to work for his own profit so many days in the week, or to have a proportion of the produce of the land, the estate owner pays the freeman for the days on which he works, and keeps the whole of the produce for himself, while his responsibility for faults committed by his slave, or for the maintenance of the slave himself and his family in sickness, ceases. Seeing, moreover, that he already finds great difficulty in retaining him if he has a mind to go, the fact that the free labourer can give notice at will makes but little difference to the situation as it exists at present. A Resident, who should successfully inaugurate the change, by inducing a few leading men to adopt the new regime before they began to suffer by the decadence of the old, would have conferred a great benefit on the country, for the example would, no doubt, spread rapidly. Some pressure could, no doubt, be exerted upon the farm slaves to enter into such a contract under the aegis and protection of Government. The Resident of Nassarawa (Mr. Webster7) informs me that at Lafia a system of hired labour by piece-work obtains. The ground is marked out into plots of 100 cowries (=1d.) worth of work; time payment is not so common, but is recognised. The Headmen were also anxious to adopt the suggestion of charging rent for land taken up by immigrants, saying that the Gwaris had the system fully developed. In the same Province slaves are also being set free, and the Serikin Kwotto says that, out of 200 whom he has freed, one has left him. He stated that the experiment had paid well, as the freed men do better work than they did as slaves. These are very encouraging instances, and set an example to the larger Emirates. In Sokoto, Nassarawa, Zaria, Bauchi, and probably elsewhere, the system of Murgu is in force,8 under which a slave may reside on his farm, and be practically free, on payment of a fee and a subsequent periodical payment until he has earned his redemption money. From this there is but a short step to actually freeing the man and charging him rental as a tenant (see para. 18 and Memo. 22, paras. 8 and 9). The use of draught animals for agricultural work and of improved implements, such as ploughs, &e., as a substitute for human labour, should also be encouraged in every way. | 10. Advantage of free labour contracts. |
| 11. The term “household slaves,” as used in this Memo., is intended to mean such slaves as have been born in a household, or have been household slaves since early childhood, and are entirely habituated to the condition of servitude. It will not be extended to include persons who have been seized as slaves after attaining maturity, or within the last few years. (For a full classification of Slaves, see Memo. 22.) The position of the household slave differs considerably from that of the farm slave or serf, and the necessity for making the abolition of the status very gradual is even greater in his case. The system is not, in fact, ill adapted to the stage of development of the country, nor is it a harsh one, if the treatment laid down in the Law books in use, and prescribed by custom, is enforced (see Memo. 22). Since all means of acquiring new slaves are now prohibited, and since household slaves do not, I believe, increase naturally, but tend to die out (though on this point I have no precise knowledge as regards West Africa); and since manumission of a slave is held by the Koran to be a meritorious act, and is obligatory in many cases, as explained in Memo. 22, and is enforceable by Native Courts for certain offences; and since children born after 1st April, 1901, are free; and desertion and redemption cause further depletion; the institution will die a natural death in the course of a limited number of years. It is the policy of Government not to hasten that event unduly, and to secure to the Mohammedan gentry the continued service of their existing household slaves during the period of transition. As a matter of fact, there is little tendency on the part of genuine household slaves to run away from their masters. It means to them an abandonment of all old associations. The lack of initiative inherent in the African temperament will induce a slave even to suffer much ill-treatment before he will take the plunge of leaving his master. In most cases of desertion by domestic slaves, it will be found, either that the slave has been comparatively recently acquired, or that there has been continued ill-treatment. | 11. (b) Household slaves. |
12. It has been shown that the effect of the abolition of the “Legal Status” is to enable any slave to assert his freedom; it has, on the other hand, also been shown that the indiscriminate grant of freedom would, in all probability, produce misery and deplorable results. How then is the Political Officer to deal with a question in which it would appear that he may act wrongly whether he supports the case of either slave or master, seeing that, as a British subject, he cannot take part in restoring a fugitive slave (Slavery Proclamation, Section 3), and as a Political Officer he may create disorder if he does not protect the master. Undoubtedly the question is a difficult one, and each case must be dealt with on its own merits. I propose to indicate here a few general principles to assist those who have not had a large experience of such cases.
(a.) In the first place, the Resident should fully question the slave, and determine in his own mind whether the case is a deserving and genuine one. If cruelty on the part of the master, or an intention to sell or transfer the slave, can be shown, it would at once establish a claim to assistance; the local Chief would recognise its justice, and it would not act as an incentive to the entire slave population to repudiate their status. Or, if the slave shows a superior intelligence, or an inherent love of liberty, combined with a definite purpose and intention in life, the case would be a genuine and deserving one. Cases of the latter class will be so rare among slaves born in servitude, as to be practically non-existent. They may arise among those who have been comparatively newly enslaved, and, under the operation of the Proclamation, will become more and more rare with the efflux of time, since it is now illegal to enslave any person. In such cases freedom should be granted, and the Resident must use such means as are in his power to reconcile the owner and Chiefs to his decision. This can perhaps best be done by a frank statement that it is the law, coupled with an explanation why the law has, in this case, been put in force. But suppose that the case took place near a very large native town; that the Resident was aware that both masters and slaves were watching it as a test case; that his decision to free the man might herald a break-up of the whole organisation of the town, and even a rising which he had not the Force to control, and that the master and Chiefs were obdurate. In such an extreme case, it might be necessary to resort to expediency: to connive, that is to say, at the escape of the slave, and to avoid the necessity of giving a public decision. Finally, if recourse to the assertion of their freedom was made by such large numbers of slaves as to involve the dangers described, the Resident would report with the utmost dispatch to the High Commissioner, who might find it necessary to temporarily place the district under special rules for the public safety. But now that masters and slaves alike have seen the way in which the British Law is actually enforced, it is chimerical to discuss such a contingency as wholesale assertion of freedom accompanied by disturbances. On the contrary, it will be found, as a rule, that when a domestic slave desires his freedom, but has in his own view no adequate grounds for asserting it, he will ask permission to redeem himself (See Para. 14). | 12. Method of dealing with cases of assertion of freedom. |
| 13. (b.) On the other hand, if, after enquiry, the Resident comes to the conclusion that the slave has no good case, that there has been no cruelty, and that the person is simply a bad character, or a loafer desirous of escaping from work, however light, he would discourage the assertion of freedom; more especially in the case of farm slaves if desertion had become very prevalent in the district, and in the case of household slaves if the case occurred near a large native centre containing a considerable slave population. It will usually be found that the slave who wishes to assert his freedom is not deterred by any fear of recapture if he runs away, but requires some specific act of assistance from the Government, such as Government employment or to be allowed to live in Cantonments, or to accompany the caravan of a European. If the Resident is (according to supposition) convinced that the man is unfit to lead an independent life, he may, while admitting the right of the slave to freedom, withhold the special assistance required. He may also utilise the services of the Native Court in the manner described in Memo. 8, para. 10. | 13. (b) Unsatisfactory cases. |
| 14. The majority of cases of assertion of freedom no doubt take place among the agricultural population, and the most effective way of preventing a too sudden and premature tendency to desertion is, as I have said in para. 6, by enforcing proprietary rights in land. In other words, by not permitting fugitive farm slaves to occupy land to which they have no title, nor to build new villages at will, and by upholding the landlord’s right to charge rents to his tenants. Government thus does not interfere with the legal right of the serf to assert his freedom, but, before granting him permission to acquire land, it may, if the occasion demands it, insist on his showing good cause for his desertion of his former work, and if he fails to do so, it may decline to grant him the new land, the ultimate title to which is now, for the most part, vested in Government. Residents will, therefore, inform each other either of slaves fugitive from their own, or arriving from a neigbouring, Province; and if, after investigation (which could in exceptional cases be held in the presence of both Residents), it transpires that there was no sufficient cause for their running away, and that they have not redeemed themselves, the Resident of the Province in which they desire to take up land may decline to grant permission. It will, moreover, be made known that everyone who takes up new land, without having first obtained the consent of the Resident, will be liable to eviction, and that Chiefs giving land to fugitive slaves will lay themselves open to censure. The latter should, therefore, report all cases of arrival of fugitive slaves to the Resident. Many slaves or serfs will, unknown to Residents, attach themselves to existing villages, but such cases will be dealt with in the same way as new communities, and Chiefs will be forbidden to accept these immigrants, and to grant them land to farm, without the assent of the Resident. It must, however, be borne in mind that it is always open to the fugitive slave to go into foreign territory, especially from the frontier Emirates of Kano, Sokoto, and Bornu (or even into another British Protectorate, as in the case of Illorin or Nupe slaves going to Lagos), and that in such a case the Administration is powerless to check desertion, nor can the Government in any case permit, still less assist in, the forcible recapture of slaves by their masters. It would be well for the masters to realise this point. I think this method of placing a check upon wholesale desertion by slaves is preferable to the method adopted in East Africa, to which I have alluded in para. 4. Moreover, were a notification to be made that slaves must claim their freedom before a British Court, it would probably be understood as a declaration that all slaves should come and be freed, and would thus hasten, instead of retarding, the process. The policy I have described constitutes an arbitrary interference with natural laws tending to progress and to the better development and cultivation of the country, and it is suited, therefore, only to a period of transition, and intended only as a check on a too rapid change. It will not arrest that change, which is daily taking place. | 14. Assertion of freedom (a)—by farm slaves. |
| 15. It will, in practice, probably be found that the majority of the applicants among household slaves are women, who desire to leave a master to whom they are in the relation of wife or concubine, in order to marry another man. In such cases, if the woman is the legal wife and also the slave of her husband (which would be rarely if ever the case), he will have paid the Sadaki9 to her (see Memo. 23,§ 10), and she or the man whom she desires to marry must, in accordance with Moslem law, return it. If she or he can be induced in addition to pay the redemption money to the master, that course should be encouraged just as in the case of men, but if they decline to pay it, it cannot be enforced. She has in fact under the Slavery Procl. asserted and obtained her freedom, and it is in point of fact constantly recognized in the Native Courts that in such cases it is futile to attempt to keep a woman who has made up her mind to go. But if, as is usually the case, the woman being a concubine to her master, and not his legal wife, no Sadaki has been paid to her, the intending husband is liable for it, and must pay it to her, and she can then use it to pay her redemption money. The important point is that in all cases (except when a slave-girl marries a fellow-slave and both continue in their status of slavery), the woman on marriage must be declared free before the Alkali. The man, in favour of whom the woman has left her master, marries her as a free-woman, and is amenable for slave-dealing if he subsequently treats her as a slave concubine. The same rules apply if the girl is a bachucheni who has not become her master’s concubine. The intending husband must pay her the Sadaki, out of which she can make a contribution to her master in return for the maintenance and home she has had at his hands, since in her case ransom money is not demanded—but this contribution would be optional, and in any case she is formally declared free. The Native law in these matters is liberal, and is fully discussed in Memos. 22, § 5 and 23, § 10. A Resident need only intervene to the extent of seeing that the woman is declared free (with or without the payment of ransom), and that the dower is devoted to her own use, as is customary in the case of a free-born woman. | 15. (b) By Household Slaves—women. |
| 16. The entry in Native Court returns “Ransoms and marries her, paid—,” is now a very frequent one, and Residents should be very careful to see that these are genuine cases, and not merely a transaction in slaves disguised in this form. The Alkali of Bida, a noted jurist, frankly lays down (according to Mr. Duff10) that “all concubinage proceeds from sale, and that anyone who procures a concubine and pays a monetary consideration for her, in fact buys her, whether she is a free woman, a slave or a bachucheni, and the conditions of such a marriage are virtually concubinage.” Mr. Duff adds that “in the case of slaves becoming concubines, the dowry is nothing more nor less than purchase money.” There appears to be here a misconception regarding the dower. It is paid to the intended bride, and not to the master or parents—unless through them for her sole use. This is clear from the Risalah (See “First Steps,” chap.1 and Memo 23, § 10). It cannot therefore be “purchase money,” but the woman may use it for self-redemption if she desires to do so. The effect of the Bida Alkali’s interpretation and of what I have written is far-reaching. It amounts in fact to an abolition of the slave-concubine class (except in the case of a slave-girl who is voluntarily her master’s concubine), and of a decree of emancipation for all women on marriage, except in the case of a woman slave who marries a fellow-slave. This would seem at first to be revolutionary, but a study of the law regarding women slaves (See Memo. 22) will, I think, show that it does not in fact go much beyond the present liberal interpretation of the law in Northern Nigeria by the Native Courts. For it is already held that a bachucheni11 cannot be sold, and since women can no longer be obtained as slaves and concubines from Pagan tribes, it follows that practically all women are already emancipated. The law as it exists also recognizes that a slave woman who bears a child to her master is not only free at his death, but practically so during his life, and that even if she bears no child but is well behaved she is free at her master’s death. The step is advance which would be involved by recognition of the fact that, under the law of the Protectorate, no man might purchase a concubine (under the disguise of a so-called dowry) without first liberating her, would, in effect, be that the man who desired the woman, must formally ransom her and declare her free before marriage, instead of later on. The ransom money would be the equivalent of the purchase money, and he need not pay an additional Sadaki, since, in theory, he pays the ransom-money to the woman as her dower, and she redeems herself with it; the only practical difference would be that as a free woman he would have somewhat less power over her. This does not appear to me, looking to the existing conditions, to be too drastic an innovation. Nor does there seem any good reason why a man of wealth and position should not give her freedom to any woman whom he desires to marry; and there appears rather less excuse in buying a girl as a concubine, than in buying a man to till his land. Since all children born subsequent to April 1st, 1901, are free, it follows that in another seven or eight years all young (marriageable) girls of 14 or 15 will be freeborn. The Resident Muri observed (in 190312) that “slave-girls for concubines are plentiful and cheap, while free-born women are costly, scarce, and troublesome.” If, however, on the one hand the girl is really a slave, her acquisition, unless liberated, by a new owner is clearly a “transfer,” and hence illegal, even if no purchase money in the form of a so-called “dower” was made. If, on the other hand, she is a newly enslaved Pagan, the offence is still worse, for the man who acquires the slave-girl, whether by giving a “dowry” (which is a misnomer and a fraud, since it never reaches the bride) or purchase money, continues the illegal act of enslaving, and is guilty under charge. The sale of a girl, often immature age, for the purpose of forcible concubinage with a man whom she may fear and loathe, is one of the worst aspects of slavery; and it must also be borne in mind that the purchase of slave concubines by the powerful and wealthy classes to gratify their own desires, deprives the class from which these girls are drawn of their proper complement of women as wives. Though the enforcement of the law in this matter may result in the immediate emancipation of all slave-women except those who marry or are concubines to their own masters, and those who marry a fellow-slave without transfer of ownership, I am, after careful thought, of opinion that the step is one which is demanded by the existing law, and is feasible and practicable under existing circumstances. It is possible that the immediate result may be a relaxation of the control over wives and concubines, with a resulting increase in immorality (as I believe was the case in East Africa), but reforms very commonly result in an initial evil, which rights itself before long. The emancipation of women at marriage will, moreover, tend to give a woman more choice, and thus to greatly improve the condition of women in the country. The Koranic law does not compel a man to free a concubine, but the precepts of the Koran as regards slavery are superseded by British law, and the interpretation to be put on that law is, that whenever a woman whose status is that of a slave marries a man, and any “dowry” is demanded by the owner of the woman, it must be regarded as purchase money, and the transaction is consequently illegal. It may, however, be paid as redemption-money, provided that the woman is first freed with all proper formalities by the Native Court. | 16. Acquiring concubines. |
| 17. If a slave woman leaves he master to live with a soldier or constable, and she can be taken on the roll under the conditions laid down in G.S.O. 1, § 50 and § 96 (3) — with which every Resident should be familiar—the soldier’s Commanding Officer will request the Resident to arrange the matter as an ordinary question of Native marriage, on the principles I have just described. If, however, the master (as husband or guardian) will not consent to the marriage (after liberation), she may not be taken by force, but will be sent back to her husband or guardian. Boys and old unmarriageable women, who desire to become servants to soldiers and are admissable under the Standing Orders quoted, must be redeemed and declared free in the presence of the Alkali before being allowed to take service with a soldier or constable. A soldier’s Commanding Officer, or a District Superintendent of Constabulary, will use his discretion as to advancing the redemption money, according to the man’s character, precisely as he would if an advance were required for any other purpose, and the full formalities of declaring the person free must be gone through in the Native Court, and a freedom certificate given, and the slave’s name changed, before the soldier or constable may marry the ex-slave or accept his or her service as a servant. In the latter case some small wage should also be fixed. Care will thereafter be taken that the soldier does not dispose of the servant or of the woman he has married. If either should desire a divorce, the case will be brought before the proper Court, and dealt with in accordance with Native law and custom. These instructions apply equally to all Government servants, civil and military. The Resident will, of course report all such cases in his monthly return of Freed Slaves. These instructions refer solely to slaves who have deserted their masters. In the case of slaves liberated by British Courts, I cannot, even with these safeguards, approve their marriage (or employment as servants) with soldiers, police or Native civil employees of Government, for it is apt to be misunderstood on both sides. Major Festing, when Acting Commandant, reported that soldiers, who have been allowed to “marry” a woman who had been thus freed, have asked why, if they were allowed to obtain a slave from Government, they should not be allowed to sell. Even if every precaution is taken during a soldier’s (or other employees) service with Government, what is to prevent him, when time-expired or discharged, from selling at some distant place the woman or servant thus supplied to him by a British Government obtained if, owing to the frequent changes and the constant interest of various officers with no previous experience or knowledge of Alkali subjects, or to laxity, the orders laid down in G.S.O 1, are not strictly enforced, what difference in principle would be in this transaction and a transaction in slaves? Or what would distinguish the Resident’s Court, which assigned the woman to a Government employé or to a soldier (if the dower were allowed to be paid to the owner, and the slave was not formally freed), from a slave market presided over by a British Official? If, however, the instructions are observed, it is clear to all that the hands of the Government are clean in the matter. The redemption money goes to the master, and not to the Government, and the freeing of the slave is witnessed by the Native Alkali. If the soldier or constable should be convicted of subsequently selling the ex-slave, he is liable to a long term of imprisonment. The transaction in the case of a fugitive slave is generally one of Native marriage, and presumably, adds to the happiness of the slave woman who ran away from her master. But the question of slaves liberated by the British Courts stands on a different basis, and in no case will a slave so liberated be given to a Native in Government employ, whether as wife or servant except with the express consent of the High Commissioner. (See G.S.O., 60, § 10 (c).) The Rules for the Freed Slaves Home13 in that G.S.O., § 11, provide that Europeans and other Non-Natives of standing may become Guardians of freed slave children under certain conditions. If such a person committed a felony by dealing in slaves, he would be liable to 14 years’ penal servitude—a sufficiently deterrent punishment. | 17. Marriage or service with government employees. |
| 18. Self-redemption is recognized by Mohammedan law, and facilities are given by masters, and by the Native Courts, These are fully discussed in Memo.22. The Emir and Alkali of Sokoto have, however, gone beyond the strict interpretation of the law, and have proclaimed the right of a slave to purchase his freedom even against the will of his master. “The Native Court now receives all such applications, fixes the amount of the ransom and the time, and makes what arrangements it can for enabling the slave to find the money.” From Kano also, as from most other Provinces, it is reported that ample opportunity is given, and there is no difficulty in purchasing freedom. Liberation by ransom or self-redemption is thus considered fair and just, it is, in fact, doubtful how far arbitrary liberation by British Courts is looked upon as really removing a man out of the slave class, for cases have occurred in which slaves freed by Government have preferred to pay the redemption money, and so gain the recognized status of a free man in Native opinion. In an interesting case at Bida, a discharged soldier (already freed) insisted on paying redemption money, stipulating that it should not be too small a sum, as he had been well-treated by his master, and would not be regarded as really free if he paid too little. In my view, it is most desirable to encourage such an arrangement, since, on the side of the master, it enables him to realise money which he in all probability actually paid for the slave under a régime when such an investment was not illegal, and, on the side of the slave, it probably tends to make him value what he has purchased by his own efforts. Residents should, therefore, promote such arrangements under the following conditions:—The sum fixed must vary with the age and sex of each person, but they will see that it is a fair one, and endeavor to have it fixed as low as possible. Enhancement in the value of slaves, due to their present scarcity, must not be allowed to operate in fixing the amount of the redemption money. If the slave remains with his master, he must have a fair opportunity of realising it (either by working on the days set apart for his own use, or by other recognised means) within a reasonable time, which should, in no case, exceed a year. It is, however, I think, the invariable custom for a slave who agrees to pay redemption money to remain under his master’s protection, while he works on his own account for wages. The master might, in such a case, claim to be absolved from all responsibility of maintaining the slave or his family if he fell sick, but it is a proof of the liberal treatment shown by a master to his slave, that the latter is allowed to remain on the old terms till he has earned the money to free himself. (See Memo 22, para. 8.) This system of self-redemption, so universal in the Fulani States, is I am informed, not recognised in Bornu. It will be introduced judiciously in accordance with this Memo, and it can be pointed out to the owners that the process (known as “Kitabah”) is founded on the teaching of the Koran, Surah 24, 33. [Hughes’ Dictionary of Islam.] The system of self-redemption known as Murgu has been alluded to in para. 10, and is described in Memo. 22, § 8. It is one which is especially worthy of encouragement. Even in those cases where a slave is allowed to work independently on payment of a fixed periodical sum without any view to redemption, it is valuable as teaching independence, the more so that the master will be anxious to obtain the slave’s labour for hire on payment, but it is not so satisfactory as the commoner system of Murgu with a view to redemption, since the master still retains rights of property in the slave, and may secretly sell him. | 18. Self redemption |
| 19. Work can be provided by Government for slaves intending to redeem themselves, on the understanding that they agree to a monthly deduction from their wages for the purpose. When the total is realised, the owner and the slave will both attend before the Native Court, and the arrears of pay will be paid over to the latter, who will himself, of his own free will, pay the sum agreed upon to his master, who will then give him a certificate of freedom. If there is no proper Native Court, the transaction may take place before the Provincial Court, but in that case the Court will not recognise the transaction as being between master and slave, but as a voluntary adjustment of reciprocal claims and obligations, which have not been assessed, or adjudicated upon, by the Court. The latter only witnesses the payment, and sees that a proper receipt is given. Whenever practicable, however, the services of the native Alkali should be utilised for the reasons given in the last paragraph, and because he is better able to carry out the formalities of re-naming the freed slave, and himself thus becomes charged with the responsibility of seeing that the liberation is effective, and of taking action if the freed slave should again be enslaved. The scheme of self-redemption is, of course, only applicable to slaves born or long held in servitude, and not to newly-captured slaves or to others illegally held. | 19. Limitation to government action. |
| 20. The question of purchase for the purpose of liberation or bona fide adoption is one which merits consideration here. This is, undoubtedly, an offence under the Slavery Law, and must be dealt with as such, but, if the slave was a bona fide domestic slave, punishment need not, as a rule, be inflicted. Thus, if a person, on the death of a relative owning slaves, were to purchase one, in order to at once manumit him as an act of piety or affection, there would be a technical breach of the law, but only its letter, and not its spirit, would be violated. In any such case, the Resident would see that the procedure laid down with respect to liberation by redemption was carried out before the Native Court. The purchase of children, who had been kidnapped or sold into slavery, even though they be freed and adopted, is, on the other hand, a continuation at the time of purchase of the act of “enslaving”—a much more serious offence than the transfer of a domestic slave. Even the subsequent act of adoption does not justify this, while the whole transaction breaks the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law, by increasing the demand for slave children, and so creating a market for the slaver. I understand that many tribes in Southern Nigeria destroy, or do not breed, their own children, relying on the opportunity for purchase. Purchase of enslaved children, therefore, for adoption will be treated as a serious offence, though leniency may be shown where it is proved that the person was bona fide ignorant that an offence was being committed. | 20. Purchase with a view to liberate |
| 21. It has become a common practice in some districts for slaves to refuse to do any work, and to threaten to run away, unless bribed by presents from their masters, who complain that they have no longer any discipline over their slaves. That slaves should thus demand, and masters be compelled to pay, what, in effect, amounts to wages, is, of course, the solution at which we aim; but I have given reasons in para, 5 for not hurrying the process too quickly. The assertion of freedom is, however, a wholly different matter from idleness whilst still continuing to live as a slave at the master’s expense, and when therefore slaves refuse to work and make such demands, or when for other indisputable reasons it appears advisable to support the authority of the master, the Native Court may be allowed deal with the case. It would, however, be advantageous to point out to the master that when “presents” are demanded and given, they should, in future, be treated as definite payments, an equivalent amount of work being agreed upon, the obligation to perform which is enforceable in a British Court. When once the owner has learnt this, the difficulties of “the slavery question” will largely disappear. | 21. Slaves Refusing to work. |
| 22. If a Native Court summons a runaway slave, with a view to investigating his case—the slave being a bona fide domestic slave—and the summons is disobeyed, it may be enforced like any other, in the last resort by the Administration. If, however, the fugitive offers redemption money, it must in such a case, always be accepted. It must be clearly understood, however, that the summons of the Native Court does not mean that the question of the rendition of the runaway is prejudged and will necessarily be ordered, but that the Court will investigate the circumstances and decide equitably whether there is any debt or obligation due from the fugitive. In no case may a Provincial Court assist in the capture of a runaway slave, in order that he may be surrendered to his owner in virtue of any claim to his person arising solely from his status as a slave. In many cases where the fugitive is a woman it will be found to be a domestic quarrel, and the woman may be glad to return and be forgiven. When a woman, however declines to return the Native Court hardly ever, I think, insists on her doing so, and time is granted for her to collect ransom money. | 22. Powers of Native Courts to investigate |
| 23. In Cantonments, where there is adequate means to fully enforce the law, where the conditions are analogous to those of a British Colony, and where vagrants and thieves can be dealt with as in a civilised community, the fullest exposition and the most liberal practice would be given to the law regarding slavery, and not only will no man or woman remain in slavery, except at his or her own desire, but the means of asserting freedom should fully made known. The permission to reside in Cantonments, which the Cantonment Magistrate issues under sec. I8 of the Cantonments Proclamation, will never be granted to a fugitive slave without the approval of the High Commissioner, and prior reference should be made to the Resident of the Province from which the fugitive came. Cantonment Magistrates will make full enquiry into the antecedents of all persons, before granting permits to reside, with a view to ascertaining whether they are fugitive slaves. | 23. Slavery not allowed in Cantonments |
| 24. The Proclamation of 1901 did not make the dealing in slaves illegal, for it would only have been a “pious resolution,” which the Government had no power at that time to enforce, more especially in the Emirates not then under Administrative control. At the time, however, of the installation of the Emirs of Sokoto, Kano and Zaria (March, 1903), it was fully explained to them that in future all transactions in slaves would be illegal, and that they held their appointments subject to the fulfillment of the conditions imposed. The new Proclamation, therefore, makes all transactions in slaves illegal. Slave-raids are, I trust, entirely a thing of the past. Should anything of the sort occur, it would be at once suppressed by force, and the leaders brought to trial. (If any person had been killed in the course of such a raid, the charge would be one of murder against each person concerned in it). | 24. Slave dealing now illegal. |
25. The principal forms of slave-trading at the present time are:—
(a.) Caravans of slaves purchased in German Territory, and imported chiefly into Bornu (for disposal in French territory to the North) and, to a less extent, into Yola.
>(b.) Export of slave children to Southern Nigeria and Lagos from the Benue Provinces (these also come largely from German territory).
(c.) Kidnapping and purchase of persons (chiefly children) from Pagan tribes. In the early days of the Administration, I was inclined to be lenient of these slave traders, on the assumption that they were ignorant of the law, but the precautions now taken to avoid capture show that these people are well aware that they are breaking the law, and increasingly heavy penalties should be inflicted in order to put a stop to this traffic. Chiefs of villages also, who supply these slave-traders with food and give no information to the Resident, will be warned that they will be liable on conviction to punishment as accessories (Sec. 7 of Procl.). A bona fide trader, who has slave wives or servants, does not, of course, violate the law by taking the with him on a journey, provided that he does not do so with intent to sell, give, or transfer them. A Resident must exercise discrimination in dealing with cases of “Kidnapping,” for it occasionally happens that when a trader traverses a district where famine is prevalent, children and even adults will attach themselves to his party of their own accord, in the hope of obtaining food in the district to which he is going. Similarly mothers may be willing to sell their children to procure a little food for themselves, and in preference to seeing them die of starvation. Traders should be instructed in such circumstances to acquaint the Resident fully on arrival, and warned that if they retain the persons as slaves they will be prosecuted. On the other hand, it is always possible that the trader may not have taken them as slaves, but may merely have given them a free conduct from motives of humanity. The mere presence, therefore, of persons with a trader’s caravan, who appear to be newly-acquired slaves, should not be considered conclusive evidence, and the fullest investigation into the mode of acquisition should always be made. Enslaving is, obviously, a more serious offence than slave-trading, and dealing in raw slaves is enslaving (since it continues the act), and is more serious than the sale or transfer of a domestic slave, and should be punished accordingly. It is, of course, necessary to prove that the person alleged to have been enslaved was previously free (see Memo. 4, § 9), and in this case (as in the case dealt with in para. 33 and 34), British Courts must in equity take cognizance of the status of slavery, although it is in theory a status unknown to law. To steal a slave (a very prevalent crime in some districts) is an offence against the Slavery Proclamation. It is a “transfer” of the slave to the thief, and is, therefore, a “transaction in slaves.” It will require very careful efforts on the part of Residents to put a stop to the practice of slave-dealing, and they must be constantly on the look out for smuggled slaves. It was, for instance recently reported to me that slaves could be sold with greater ease at Lokoja than in any other part of the Protectorate.” How far this is true I am unable to say, but there is little doubt that Lokoja, originally a freed-slave settlement, and the sub-capital of Northern Nigeria, is the objective of many of the slave-traders who bring slaves from Bornu and the Benue districts. | 25. Slave Trading. |
26. The system, so prevalent in this country, of holding persons in pawn for debt is closely analogous to slavery, and the pawn often becomes a life-long slave. The subject will be dealt with as follows: — (1.) When the person pawned has, of his own free will, pledged his or her labour for a limited time in redemption of debt, the contract will not be considered illegal, but, in all cases, the labour rendered will count in liquidation of the debt. Three-pence per diem if the pawn is fed and housed by his creditor, and 4d. per diem if he is not, will be taken as the value of a full say’s labour. If the creditor dies, the obligation will be liquidated to the heir.
(2.) When the person has been seized and held in servitude against his or her will: —
(a.) If the pawn is the debtor, he or she will be released, and the amount of time during which he or she has been detained will count in liquidation of the debt, the remainder of which can be recovered by an action in the Native Court.
(b.) If the pawn is not the debtor, but a friend, relation, or tribesman seized by the creditor, the case will be dealt with as though the person had been seized as a slave. If previously free, the pawn will be liberated, and the seizer will incur like penalties as for enslaving a person, and his claim to repayment of the debt will be cancelled. If the pawn was already a slave, he or she will be liberated from the seizer and declared free, and the claim to repayment will be cancelled. If the seizure has involved separation of mother and child, or other close relationships, the seizer may be punished for a transaction in slaves (viz., “transferring”), but has not, of course, enslaved the person. If, however, the seizer were ignorant of wrong-doing, and the detention has been short and the debt of old standing, the Resident, though setting free the slave or pawn, will use his discretion as to whether some portion of the debt should not still be claimable. If in these circumstances the claim of the creditor is cancelled, wholly or in part, the obligation of the debtor is not extinguished, and he may be ordered to pay into Court, all, or such portion, of the debt as the Court thinks just, and the Court may award therefrom any compensation to the person seized, as may appear just, and the balance will be paid to the Charity Fund. | 26. Holding a person in pawn. |
| 27. In the enforcement of the Law prohibiting transactions in slaves, a number of persons, chiefly women and children, who have been transported great distances from their homes, are necessarily set free, and Government incurs the responsibility of their disposal. It is, in my view, of very great importance that the motive of the Government in liberating slaves should not be liable to misinterpretation. It is so difficult for Natives to understand our point of view in this matter, that they are apt to think that we wish to retain for ourselves the slaves we seize, or to sell them, or to forcibly convert them to Christianity. I have already (para.17) alluded to the difficulty experienced by soldiers in understanding our methods, and this difficulty is likely to be even greater among Natives who have been brought into contact with Europeans at all. | 27. Disposal of Freed Slaves. |
| 28. Restoration to their homes is, of course, the most desirable method of dealing with freed slaves, and this will be done whenever possible, except in the case of children sold by their own parents, who, if restored, would only be sold again, while the parents pocketed the double profit. But since there is, unfortunately, a great danger lest persons (especially women) set free, and told to return to their homes at some distance, would again be enslaved before they reached their destination, care will always be taken to let them avail themselves of the opportunity of an escort, and they should, if possible, report their safe arrival to the Resident of the Province in which their home is situated. By far the greater number, however, cannot be repatriated, either (a) because they come from German territory, and to send them back, were it possible, would mean their re-enslavement, or (b) because they are small children, who do not know where their homes are, or (c) because they have been sold by their own people, and, if returned, would, presumably, be sold again. | 28. (a) Repatriation. |
| 29. In these cases, the course to be adopted will be as follow: —The slave-name of the liberated person will, at the time of liberation, be changed to a free-name. This should always be done with all the usual formalities by the Alkali in the Native Court. He should also be required to attend any important slavery cases in the Provincial Court, and informed of the reasons for liberation. (a) Men.—If the slave is a man, he will be given a paper of freedom at the same time that he receives his new (freeman’s) name from the Alkali, and he will be entered on the roll, with marks for identification. He will be allowed to follow his own inclinations and if work is available, he should be offered it. The local Chief and the Alkali who witnessed his liberation will be held responsible that he is not re-enslaved. (b) Children.— When, in the circumstances described in the last paragraph, it is not feasible to restore children to their homes, they will be sent to the Freed Slaves Home at Zungeru (except those released in Bornu, who will go to the local Home there), unless their mother is with them, in which case they will remain with her, vide (c.) Children sent to the Homes will be re-named on arrival by the Native Court at Maifoni or at Zungeru. If there should be no Native Court, the ceremony will take place in the Cantonment Magistrate’s or other British Court in the presence of the leading Natives. Great care will be taken to verify the claim of any persons representing themselves to be the parents of freed children, and, if it can be proved that they sold them, the children will not be restored, and the parents will be tried for enslaving. If, on the other hand, they prove to be no relation to the children, but merely wished to fraudulently acquire them on the plea of relationship, they will be tried under Sec. 6 of the Proclamation for attempting to commit the offence of slave dealing. Boys over thirteen should, if possible, be given employment locally as servants to Non-Natives (on a regular wage), and not sent to the Home, but if it is not possible to so employ them, they may be sent to Lokoja or Zungeru to be apprenticed to traders, or trained as domestic servants. They will not be inmates of the Home over the age of thirteen. Unmarried girls may be sent to the Home, or in rare cases they may be given to a thoroughly reliable Native Chief or Native of position (after public liberation) to be adopted as a child of his family, never as a concubine. This course, however, is so liable to abuse and to be misunderstood, that it should only be adopted in the rarest cases, where the Resident has complete confidence in the Guardian, and can himself keep an eye on the result. The same course may in like cases be taken with regard to small children. In all cases of guardianship, whether by Native Chiefs or by Non-Natives, the rules contained in G.S.O. 60 will be strictly enforced, and the freed slave will be liberated and re-named with all formality, and the case fully reported in the Resident’s report. Children will always be sent in charge of a reliable person (a European if possible), who will see that they each get their full ration of food daily, and that the stronger ones do not appropriate the share of the others. Emaciated children will not be sent down till they have recuperated, and in all cases they will be certified as fit to travel by the Medical Officer (See G.S.O. 60, § 14). When practicable, children should be detained till they can be sent by a steamer. Adequate notice of the date of dispatch, and the date on which they should arrive, will be sent to the Cantonment Magistrate of Lokoja (if they have to pass through that place), and to the Cantonment Magistrate of Zungeru, in order that they may be met on arrival, and arrangements made for their temporary accommodation, pending medical inspection and reception into the Home. (c) Women. Adult women who have been married will not be sent to the Zungeru Home, unless in exceptional cases, for experience has shown that they are most unmanageable, and apt to become prostitute in barracks. Moreover, in many cases, no one can be found who can speak their language. Now that the Administration is extended over the whole Protectorate, it will, I hope, be possible to restore to their homes all women who have been enslaved within the Protectorate, while those from German territory appear to have done well in the Bornu Home. But, if it is not feasible to repatriate a woman, and (in Bornu) she does not desire to go the Freed Slaves Home, or proves troublesome there, she can, in Bornu, be sent to the Freed Slaves Village, and elsewhere can be employed on garden work, or other suitable tasks, in the Government grounds, and paid for her labour at, say 3d per diem, until she, of her own free will, elects to marry some local Native of good character who is not in Government employ (See para. 17.) The Resident will keep a roll of men who have thus married freed slaves, and will take an opportunity of satisfying himself from time to time that the woman is well-treated, and has not been sold or transferred, and he will of course see that she has been publicly liberated, and that her husband accepts her only on the conditions of marriage with a free woman. If the woman desires “to follow her own inclinations,” she cannot be detained by force, but she will not be allowed to live in the Government station, unless she has some proper means of livelihood, and she will not be allowed to live in or near barracks. I am aware that it is frequently, or generally, the woman’s own desire to “marry” a soldier or civil official, but this desire must, in future, be overruled, in view of what I have said in para. 17. Expenses incurred in payment for work done by such women, or for maintenance if unable to work, will be debited when possible to whatever vote for works a Resident may have at his disposal, but if there is no available fund it may be charged to the sub-vote for freed slaves (food and transport) under the Political Vote. | 29. (b) Procedure in other cases. |
| 30. The rules for the disposal of the inmates of the Freed Slaves Home are laid down in G.S.O. 60, and they will be applied to any cases to which they are applicable under this Memo. (e.g., boys retained as domestic servants, etc.). Idiots, blind persons, lepers, or other cripples, will not be sent to the Freed Slaves Home. All cases of liberation, whether by the Provincial Court or by a Native Court, or by self-redemption or voluntary manumission, or in consequence of military operations, etc., will be entered in the Provincial Freed Slaves Register, and included in the quarterly return (Memo. 2, para. 13). | 30. General Rules re Liberation. |
| 31. Messengers sent to the Resident must never be seized by persons claiming them as slaves. The person of a messenger, especially from a neighbouring Resident, is priviledged. No Resident will, under any circumstances, send a Government emissary to seize slaves for the purpose of rendition to their masters, or assist in any other way in the surrender of fugitive slaves. Any British subject who does is liable under British law to 14 years’ penal servitude, and Sec. 3 of the Slavery Proclamation extends this liability to all Non-Natives. It has been reported that Chiefs and others in outlying towns or on important roads receive bribes or rewards for capturing fugitive slaves. In such a case, the slave has asserted his freedom, as he has a legal right to do, and if the Resident, after enquiry, finds that it is a meritorious case, as described in para.12 (a), the seizer is liable to punishment for re-enslaving the person. If it is not a satisfactory case, as described in para.13, the Resident can abstain from interference, or, if an appeal is made to him by the slave, can act as suggested in that paragraph. | 31. Seizing of Slaves. |
| 32. The fact that all children born after March 31st, 1901, are by law free (Proclamation 27 of 1904, Sec.4) must be promulgated. A difficulty has been assumed in the fact that such children have probably been brought up in the houses of their parents’ master, and, to some extent, it may be said, at his expense. I do not myself see much force in this contention, since the expense to the master is rather imaginary than real, and the master has presumably had the services of the parents as his slaves, but, a child so brought up should liquidate any real obligation which in Native opinion may exist, when he attains maturity; he is, however, legally free-born and the compulsion to do so must arise from Native public opinion, and may take the form of free service for a year or more as an apprentice. The obligation is in fact of the same nature as that owed by a son to the parents who have brought him up. | 32. Children born after March 31st, 1901. |
| 33. I have said that the “Abolition of the Legal Status of Slavery” means that the Law cannot recognise any rights of property in slaves. This is not literally the case, for in matters of administration of estates of deceased persons and of probate, an injustice would be done were the Law to decline to recognise the equivalent value of a slave, who may be said to have been hitherto a form of currency in the country. It is necessary, therefore, to determine, not only what action the British Courts may take, but also how the family of a deceased slave-owner may deal with the matter without rendering themselves liable for slave-dealing. In the division of estates then, the following rules will be observed. Slaves may not be transferred from the family, and may be inherited only by the near relations of the deceased. If these live at a distance, it would not be permissible to break up the family of a slave for purpose of division. Joint ownership of the same slave should not be allowed. Where division is not feasible, and there is not sufficient other property to balance the value, it would, I think be within the common-sense and just interpretation of the Law to allow one person to inherit, and pay the other his share of the value of the slave in money or goods. Thus, if two sons inherit an estate consisting of one slave only, one would take the slave and pay the other half-value; such payment would not be in any sense purchasing a slave. No part of the Gado (death duties), or the fees of Court in administration, must be paid in slaves, nor may a man bequeath his slaves out of his own family. The slaves of a person dying without heirs will be set free. If the Native Court is not reliable, and the parties disagree as to the value of a slave, the Resident should adjudicate with a view to carrying out these rules. The object of the Law is thus carried out, viz., not to interfere with existing slaves, while safeguarding the slave from being separated from his family by sale, gift, or transfer. Legacies, death duties, and Court fees, &c., must be paid out of the other property. | 33. Inheritance of Slaves. |
| 34. If, in the accounts of a deceased person, it appears that various persons owed him so many slaves, is the debt to be held a valid one? Most certainly it should— the slaves of course being translated into their equivalent value at the time the debt was incurred. It may even be that no transaction in slaves was ever intended to take place, and that the term “slave” was used as an expression or measure of value, merely as a term of currency. In any case, the debt, was a just and lawful one, if contracted before the Law made transactions in slaves illegal (viz., on October 1st, 1904), but debts recorded in slaves subsequent to that date will not be recognized as recoverable. An Emir on accession may not claim a gift of slaves from any person. | 34. Equivalent value to be recognised in probate. |
| 35. Regarding the enlistment of slaves as soldiers or police: — It has in the past been a not infrequent occurrence that slaves have been enlisted, clothed, and trained for some weeks, and have then been claimed by their owners. Enquiry from the would-be recruit generally results in a denial that he is a slave. To submit recruits to examination by possible masters would be somewhat undignified, and probably not effective, since the slave would run to a station where his master would not be present to identify him; nor could attestation be postponed for many days if the master were not present. But, in spite of these drawbacks, identification before enlistment, with a consequent refusal to enlist the man if he is a slave, is to some extent possible, and should always be done when practicable. To fix a time-limit for identification is, it appears to me, in every way unsatisfactory. First, because there is no logical reason why a master should be allowed to identify a slave whose services he had only lost for a short time, and not be allowed to identify one who had run away for a longer time, though no effort of his own could have given him the opportunity of identifying him sooner. Secondly, while it is perfectly feasible to refuse to enlist a slave (no steps of course being taken to surrender him to his master), it is a wholly differrent matter to discharge a man (who has taken the Oath of attestation and allegiance to His Majesty) for no fault of his own, and merely because a slave-owner claims him as his property. Such a course of action would, on the one hand, be a violation of the spirit of the contract between the soldier and Government at the time of his enlistment, and, on the other hand, would be almost equivalent to surrendering a slave— an illegal act for a British subject. Thirdly, as the soldier would have been clothed, drilled, and trained for a longer or a shorter period, Government would be at a serious loss and inconvenience. The best way out of the difficulty appears to me to be as follows :—(a) every recruit on enlistment will be told that, if it is subsequently proved that he is a Fugitive Slave, he will be called upon to redeem himself at a fixed sum. (b) Steps will be taken to let it be known in the Native cities that, while it is not the intention of Government to afford facilities to slaves to dessert their masters indiscriminately (See paras. 5 and 13), the question of enlistment is a matter apart. Government requires some 800 recruits per annum (not a large number if distributed over the whole of this great Protectorate), and must take the men who are eager to volunteer, and most eligible in point of physique, etc. Of this number only a small proportion will be fugitive slaves. In recognition, however, of rights antecedent to the establishment of the British Administration, Government is willing to make it a condition before enlisting any man that, if it should be proved that he is a slave, he shall be called upon to redeem himself at a fixed sum, and will see that this sum is paid on proof of pre-existing claims. In doing so, it will be made clear that Government does not recognise the right of the owner to any such compensation or redemption money, but has only consented to enlist the man on his own voluntary agreement to settle any such argument on a fixed basis. Should the master at any time be able to prove his title to consideration under this arrangement, he will be free to do so, and every facility will be given him. (c) The general value of an able-bodied man, such as would be considered suitable for enlistment, appears to be from £5, to £15. I think the sum might be fixed at £5, payable by installments after it has been earned. It will not be paid as an advance by Government—first, because Government takes no direct part in the transaction, and, secondly, because the man might desert (possibly in collusion with his master) before the debt to Government had been liquidated. If the soldier has already earned the sum as deferred pay, it may be paid with his consent out of the amount due to him on that account. On receipt of the money, the master will give him a freedom paper through the native Alkali. A man enlisting as soldier proves, by that very act, that he is not an idler or a vagabond. He was, therefore, a valuable slave, and I think that the redemption rate I have named is a low one for him. It is, at the same time, not an unfair one to the master, and as much as he can reasonably expect Government to do in the matter, in view, on the one hand, of its known antislavery policy, and, on the other hand, of its declaration that it will not interfere with the existing domestic relations more than can be helped in this transitional state, and that it desires to preserve to the native gentry the services of their existing slaves. I think, however, that for the good of the Force itself (in order to popularise service with the better classes) slaves should not be enlisted when free recruits are obtainable; but this question has nothing to do with the subject of this Memo. | 35. Enlistment of Slaves. |
| 36. Since the Government has placed restrictions on Slavery, it would be inconsistent to pay a slave-owner for the use of his slaves. In my opinion, every man’s wage should be paid to the man himself, and, if he is a slave, he can make what arrangements he likes with his master, see G.S.O. 41, § 4 & 5. The payment, therefore, of Chiefs for the labour of their slaves, or for contracts for labour, if the Contractor employs slave-labour, is prohibited by G.S.O 41, unless by special sanction of the High Commissioner. If however, the slaves are employed and individually paid by Government, as may be paid as a “Headman of labour,” according to the value of his services. It would be preferable to import labour into a Province where only slave labour could be obtained (e.g., Sokoto), and to point out to the Chiefs that the money paid is thus being lost to the Province. Major Burdon argues that all labour is “forced” or slave-labour in the Sokoto Province, and can only be obtained through the Emir. Labourers or carriers are supplied by Headmen at the order of the Emir, who assigns to each, “by a sort of roster,” the number he must produce. These are for the most part slaves, and he urges, with some show of reason, that as their labour belongs to their master in return for the food and housing, &c., which he supplies, the payment for their work should be his, for he is deprived of their services while they are employed on other tasks. Without disputing the logic of this argument, so long as the contract between employer and employed is one of master and slave, it is clear to me that Government cannot rightly become a third party in such a contract when its policy is avowedly opposed to slavery, and its Courts are prohibited from recognising the Servile Status or its obligations. Government in such a case must therefore, as I have said, pay the labourers direct, taking no cognizance of their status, whether slave or free, and leave it to the master to enforce his own rights, if necessary through a Native Court. The difficulty is not, I think, so great in any other Province. With regard to the further question whether labour so provided is “forced” in the sense that it is performed by order, and not by voluntary service, the primary meaning which I have attached to the term “forced” labour in this and other Memos., &c., is labour without payment. If payment is made to the labourer himself, the worst feature of compulsory labour is avoided. I would wish that, if possible, there should be no compulsion (even though payment be made), but this is not always possible in the present circumstances of the country, especially in those alluded to at Sokoto. Even in a country where labour is wholly free, a contractor directs his “hands” to engage in whatever task he has contracted for, and in this country, whenever labour is unavoidably engaged through a Native Chief as contractor, or where in cases of emergency or essential public works pressure has to be exerted to provide labour, Government must pay the labourer himself his full wage. The action of Government in this case has a certain analogy in the custom approved by Koranic law of allowing a slave to work for his redemption, for in that case also the services of the slave are lost to his master while he is earning money to buy his freedom. | 36. Employment of slave labour by Government. |
