"مُلخّص المراسلات المتعلّقة بشؤون زنزبار من ١٨٥٦ إلى ١٨٧٢." أعدّه النقيب ب. د. هندرسون، الملحق بالإدارة الخارجية" [و‎‎١‎٠‎٩] (١١٤/٥٧)

49
Proceedings subsequent to the arbitration relating to the question of the subsidy.
may render them olisolete and useless. Indeed, I have received advices direct from Muscat
sin(;e the preceding' paragraphs were written, which point to the probiibility of some member
of Syed Saeed's family regaining the ascendency at that place. But if the authority of the
o d family were to be re-established, it might be again subverted; and I do not perceive that
it is our duty to provide with reference to the arbitration of 1861 for all the varying circum-
s^tances of a series uf revolutions and counter-revolutions arising out of events which we
cannot control. It is obvious the successor of Syed Thoweynee has not been able to maintain
his authority at Muscat; and 1 do not conceive that it is incumbent on your Excellency's
Government on the occasion of every political necessitude which may place him or any member
of his family at the head of affairs, perhaps only for a time, to restore to him the privileges
guaranteed to Syed Thoweynee and forfeited by the misconduct or incapacity of his son."
48. .Renewed representations of Government of India .—To the
above despatch the Government of India replied on the 22nd February 1870
(No. 17)—Premising that the position of Azan bin Ghes was still far from
secure, an opinion was expressed that, should he retain his power, it would be
necessary formally to recognize him. Before doing so, however, the Govern
ment of India was desirous of learning the final decision of the Home
Government with regard to the subsidy. On this subject the despatch
continued—
" In our telegiam of the 10th December we again drew attention to this subject, and
we think it necessary that your Grace's final decision should be conveyed to us before we take
Vide aracra hs 4u and 45 positive steps for the formal recognition of Azan. In our
No. siTdated 14th May 1868. former despatches marginally noted we have so fully discussed
„ 100, „ 20th MarcJi 1869. the considerations of justice, policy, and good faith which,
in our opinion, render it incumbent on us to insist on the
continued payment of the subsidy by Zanzibar to the Muscat State irrespectively of dynastic
changes, that we can do little more than refer to them.
" It is quite true, as observed in the 7th paragraph of your Grace's despatch No. 1, dated
6th January 1869, that an arbitrator does not necessarily bind himself to enforce his awards.
But the case of the Zanzibar subsidy is different from an ordinary arbitration. The negotia
tions which resulted in Lord Canning's decision were, as we have pointed out in former des
patches, undertaken at a time when Syed Thoweynee of Muscat had actually started on an
expedition against Zanzibar, in which there was every prospect of his being successful. Our
interference was supported by vessels-of-war, and we have already on two occasions actually
enforced the award and required the Sultan of Zanzibar to pay up the subsidy with arrears.
In one particular case the arrears clue amounted to $SO,000, which sum was, after a protected
discussion with the British Agent, paid by the Sultan of Zanzibar and forwarded to Muscat
in one of Syed Thoweynee's men-of-war.
"The argument moreover, however in accordance with the ideas of European diplomacy,
is one which no Oriental nation can appreciate. In the eyes of the ruler of Muscat and of
all the Chiefs and tribes of the Persian Gulf we are bound to see our just decision carried out;
and it will be impossible to persuade these people that an arbitrament so made and actually
enforced by us differs in any way from a solemn treaty. We apprehend, therefore, that little
respect will be paid to our awards either in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere if the idea gain
ground that they may be evaded by either party. It has been nur consistent policy for the
last fifty years in the Persian Gulf and the sea of Oman to induce the predatory tribes to
abandon their internecine wars and rely for the settlement of their disputes on the arbitration
of the British Government. This policy has saved much bloodshed, has averted many
political difficulties, has suppressed piracy, and rendered commerce in those regions secure.
But we fear that, for the future, these Chiefs will prefer the adjustment of ther quarrels by
the sword, if we give them ground to believe that we are indifferent to the execution of our
awards.
" We have already stated that we consider the subsidy to be due to the Muscat State,
and not merely to the ruler of it for the time being; that the honor and good faith of the
British Government are pledged to the continued payment of it; and that the political reasons
which induced Lord Canning to effect the arrangement still exist in all their force and intensity.
To that opinion, after the most mature consideration,-we still adhere, and having been placed