'Zanzibar, Muscat, and Persia. Memorandum by Political Secretary' [‎18r] (1/6)

B9BBB
BHEBhB
uawu
Zanzibar, Muscat, and Persia.
Memorandum by Political Secretary.
* India Foreign,
14th May, No. 81,
1868.
A letter,* though by no means an exhaustive
one, having been received from the Government
of India, on the subject of the relations between
Muscat and Zanzibar, and of the connexion of the
British Government with these Chiefships, it is
desirable that the numerous pending questions
bearing directly or indirectly upon those relations
should be disposed of with as little delay as
possible.
The complications, both political and official, are
many. I here is (to speak in unofficial language),
a “triangular duel,” in which Zanzibar, Muscat
and Persia are the actors.
It is expedient that the conflict between Zanzibar
and Muscat should be first considered. The Sultan
of Zanzibar (Syud Majid) stipulated, under an
arbitrament of the Government of India, to pay to
his brother, Syud Thoweynee, of Muscat, and to
his successors, the sum of 40,000 dollars per
annum. There was nothing personal about this
agreement; it was a dynastical compact. And Sir
William Coghlan, who negotiated this agreement,
and the Reverend Mr. Badger, who assisted him*
both distinctly state that it was understood in that
light by the Zanzibar Chief, and so accepted by him
without any reservation.
J he plea, therefore, that it was a personal
engagement, and lapsed on the death of Syud
Thoweynee, the late ruler of Muscat, cannot' be
maintained.
But the Zanzibar man advances another plea.
He says that the present ruler of Muscat was the
murderer of his own father (Syud Majid’s brother),
and an usurper; and that, in these circumstances,
it is a disgrace to him to pay money to his brother’s
murderer. The Government of India say that this
is a mere suspicion, but I believe that the fact is
not to be questioned for a moment; and, whatever
may be the character or the career of Syud Salim,
he has been recognized by the British Government’
and, therefore, we are as much bound to uphold*
the award as if he had been a better man. More
over, those who are versed in the history of Oman
know well that such incidents as the 'murder of
idatives, and personal or dynastical changes con
sequent thereon, have been of frequent occurrence.
Sir William Coghlan states that the father of the
Sultan of Zanzibar died with the blood of kindred
uj)on him. I am disposed to think, therefore, that
this objection is a mere subterfuge; and that if it
* 9638. ^ a
‘4