'Papers Respecting the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa and the System Pursued for its Suppression' [‎55r] (49/72)

51
49
Inclosure 1 in No. 54.
The Secretary to Government, Bombay, to the Secretary to the Government of India.
(No. 86.) March 10, 1869.
I AM directed to acknowledge your letter of 5th ultimo, forwarding copy of a
despatch from Her Majesty's Secretary of State relative to the annual subsidy paid by the
Sultan of Zanzibar to the Sultan of Muscat, and requesting an expression of the views
of the Bombay Government on the several points raised by his Grace the Duke of
Argyll.
2. The first question is, how far the faith of the British Government in India is
pledged to enforce payment of the subsidy by the Sultan of Zanzibar to the present Ruler
of Muscat.
3. It is suggested that although it was expressly stated in Lord Canning's award that
the annual payment of 40,000 crowns was not to be understood as merely personal
between the two Sultans Majid and Thoweynee, but was to extend to their respective
successors, yet the fact of the term " inheritances " being applied to the possessions of
the two Sultans, the inequality in which was to be adjusted by the annual payment, makes
it doubtful whether the subsidy should still be considered as due from Zanzibar after the
changes which have occurred in the ruling power at Muscat.
4. If this question is to be settled by a reference to the intention of Lord Canning,
so far as this can be ascertained, it will be difficult to support the view that the term
" successors" should be interpreted with the limitation suggested. It was shown by
General Coghlan that constitutionally there could not be such a thing as a succession by
inheritance to the Sultanat of either Muscat or Zanzibar, the validity of each succession
being dependent on the will of the Arab tribes. Moreover the question of the succession
to Syud Majid was discussed and was disposed of by the Government of India saying,
that to offer any opinion about the rale of succession^ in Zanzibar would be travelling
beyond the bounds of the question submitted for arbitration. (Vide paragraph 6 of
Government of India's letter of 2nd April, 1861.)
5. As further showing that the term " successors " was used without any limitation
as to the mode of succession, it may be noted that the permanency of the subsidy was
made an article of the award rather out of policy than as settling any point in the
dispute between the two Sultans. The dispute which led to the arbitration arose out of
an arrangement for the payment of the subsidy, of which General Coghlan wrote in his
45th paragraph: " The arrangement as it stands has respect to the two brothers only;
no provision whatever being made that it should continue in force beyond their own life
time." And he added that " the strict letter of all we know of the mutual agreement
might be held to sanction that limitation but he then goes on to argue that the arrange
ment ought to have been made as between the two States, and not merely as between the
two brothers Majid and Thoweynee. And this view was adopted by the Bombay Govern
ment, who wrote in paragraph 14 of their Resolution : " Syud Thoweynee can hardly
with honour resign the claims of his country, not merely his own claims, for a payment
which is to determine with his own life." It is clear, therefore, that the British Govern
ment, holding that it was for the true interests of both States that a permanent motive
should be given to Muscat to abstain from ambitious movements against Zanzibar, and
holding also that it was for their own interests that the power of Muscat in the Persian
Gulf should be permanently increased by the subsidy from Zanzibar, supplemented the
arrangement made between the two brothers by declaring that it should hold good between
their successors as well as between themselves.
6. It must be observed, further, that, in stating the terms which he submitted for
adoption in order to settle the dispute between the two Sultans, General Coghlan did not
use the word " inheritances," or any expression tending to limit his recommendation to an
arrangement between families of the two Sultans; and the Government of Bombay From c. 1668-1858, the East India Company’s administration in the city of Bombay [Mumbai] and western India. From 1858-1947, a subdivision of the British Raj. It was responsible for British relations with the Gulf and Red Sea regions. , in
submitting their opinion to the Government of India, in accordance with General Coghlan's
recommendations, in the same manner evidently contemplated a permanent arrangement
in no way dependent on any question of succession by inheritance as regards either Oman
or Zanzibar. General Coghlan, indeed, suggested, in order to prevent any reopening of
the dispute between the two States, that the Government of India should insist upon a
subsidiary term being adopted to the effect that no cause whatever, other than an open
attempt on the part of Seyd Thoweynee or his successors to infringe the independence of
Zanzibar sovereignty, should be held to justify Syed Majid or his successors in with
holding the stipulated subsidy.
7. In dealing with the third paragraph of the Secretarv of State's letter, it appears
[341] O