‘Précis of correspondence relating to Zanzibar affairs from 1856 to 1872. Prepared by Captain P D Henderson, attached to the Foreign Department’ [‎107v] (54/114)

Proceedings subsequent to the arbitration relating to the question of the subsidy.
" It is suggested that, although it was expressly stated in Lord Canoing's award that the
annual payment of 40,000 Crowns was not to be understood as merely personal between the
two Sultans, Majid and Thoweyoee, but was to extend to their respective successors, yet the
fact of the term * inheritance^ being applied to the possessions ol 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 rulinor power at Muscat.
"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
Syed Majid was discussed and was disposed of by the Government of India saying that to
offer any opinion about the rule of succession in Zanzibar would be travelling beyond the
bounds of the question submitted for arbitration.—fTwfc paragraph 6 of Government of India's
letter No. 1532 of 2nd April 1861.;
" As further showing that the term ' successo^s , 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 paragraph . f The arrange
ment, 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 be 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 arrangement 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 Govornment, who wrote in paragraph 14 of
their resolution—' Syed Thoweynee can hardly with honor 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 Government, holding that it was for the true interests of both
States that a permanent motive should be given to Muscat to abstain from ambitious move
ments against Zanzibar, and holding, also, that it was for their own interests that the power of
Muscat in the Persian Gulf The historical term used to describe the body of water between the Arabian Peninsula and Iran. should be permanently increased by the subsidy from Zanzibar,
supplemented the arrangement made between the two brothers by declaring that it should
hold srood between their successors as well as between themselves.
O
" 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 recom
mendations, in the same manner evidently contemplated a premanent arrangement
in no way dependant on any question of succession by inheritance as regards either Oman
or Zanzibar. General Coghlan, indeed, suggested, in order to prevent any re-opening of the
dispute between the two States, that the Government of India should insist upon a subsi
diary term being adopted, to the effect that no cause whatever, other than an open attempt on
the part of Syed Thoweynee or his successors, to infringe the independence of Zanzibar sover
eignty, should be held to justify Syed Majid, or his successors, in withholding the stipulated
subsidy.
" In dealing with the third paragraph of the Secretary of State's letter, it appears to
His Excellency in Council that His G.^ce is under some misapprehension as to what has lately
occurred at Muscat. His Excellency in Council thinks that he is premature in considering
that Syed Azan bin Ghes can be considered as the successor of Syed Salem, although, for
the present, he appears to have partially established himself at Muscat, and at any rate the
revolution which has taken place cannot be considered as a conquest of Muscat by the
Wahabee Arab of the interior. Although holding some religious tenets in common with them,
he is, on the contrary, hostile to the Wahabee power, and it is probale that, if the deposed
Sultan regains power, it will be owing to Wahabee aid.
" Without therefore going so far as to say that it is impossible that any such changes or
revolutions should occur in the ruling power of Muscat as to render the decision of^Lord
46