'Papers Respecting the Slave Trade on the East Coast of Africa and the System Pursued for its Suppression' [‎57v] (54/72)

inheritance; and it is expressly stated, too, that he offered no opinion whatever on the
questions of succession.
5. We are further of opinion, that the recent events which have occurred in Muscat
ought not to be considered as having altered the relations between the two State?, as far as
this subsidy is concerned. We also think that the honour and good faith of the British
Government are pledged to the continued payment of the subsidy, and that the political
reasons which induced Lord Canning to effect the arrangement still exist in all their force
and intensity.
6. We also concur with the Bombay Government in opinion that the revenues of
India cannot be burdened with any portion of this payment; and all things considered, we
do not see any reason for recommending that the present arrangement be modified or
annulled.
We have, &c.
(Signed) MAYO.
H. M. DURAND.
H. S. MAINE.
J. STRACHEY.
R. TEMPLE.
Inclosure 2 in No. 56.
Draft Despatch to the Governor-General of India.
May , 1869.
I HAVE read with much interest, and considered with all the attention which the
importance of the subject demands, the despatch of your Excellency's Government No. 100
of the 20th of March, 1869, with inclosure from 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. , respecting
the existing relations between Muscat and Zanzibar, especially in regard to the continued
payment of the subsidy by the latter to the former State.
Her Majesty's Government have never, at any time, regarded the agreement entered
into by the sons of Syud Saeed, under the arbitrament of the British Government in the
light of a personal compact; and they were not disposed, therefore, so long as any direct
successor of that Chief, should hold possession of Muscat, to declare that in their opinion
the Ruler of Zanzibar was no longer under an obligation to pay the annual subsidy. But
* /^hey have not considered that this obligation was an inheritable one, which no circum-
M^^^^stances could affect; that if Muscat should fall into the hands of a foreign ruler or one
with no hereditary claims to its possession, it would be incumbent on the British Govern
ment to maintain the original award. It would not be without just ground of complaint
that the Ruler of Zanzibar would, in such a case, find himself called upon to contribute to
the support of a Chief who has no claim upon his friendship on the score of kindred, and
whose interests may be altogether antagonistic to his own. It appears to me that it was
always intended that some dynastical limitations should restrict the award, which originally
was accepted as a family compact, and that it was not intended that the Muscat State
should receive this contribution from Zanzibar, under all circumstances, whether the
country be held by an Arab, a Persian, or a Turkish Chief.
The question then is as to the point at which the limitation should be fixed. Advert
ing to the circumstances out of which the arbitration arose, I cannot avoid the conclusion
that it was intended to confer the right of succession to all the benefits of the award upon
any of the descendants of Syud Saeed who might be recognized as Sultan of Muscat,
but not to extend it to strangers or to members of the family in more remote degrees of
consanguinity. In this view of the case I should not be prepared to enforce the payment
of the subsidy to Syud Ajan, who, at the date of the last advices which I have received was
the de facto Ruler of Muscat. But I am not unmindful of the fact that two of the direct
descendants of Syud Saeed, viz., Syud Salim and Syud Toorkhee, are making demonstrations
with the object of expelling Syud Ajan, and that another revolution may place one or other
of these chiefs at the head of the Government of Muscat. Whilst affairs are in this unsettled
state, it would obviously not be expedient to release the Ruler of Zanzibar from the payment of
the subsidv, as circumstances might again render him justly liable to the disbursement, and if
he should once receive an acquittance he might consider it a greater hardship than before
to be called upon to make the payment. But as I understood that by a recent arrange
ment the money is now paid through the Bombay Government, it might be held in trust,
pending the struggles for supremacy which are imminent, and the Sultan of Zanzibar
might be informed that if the succession to the Chiefship of Muscat should pass out of the