ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA).
163
that he has forfeited for himself aiid his successors, or in consideration of his recognition Appendix, JNo. 8, .
of the future independence of the Zanzibar state, I judge that the compensation offered —
on that behalf by Syud Majeed is a fair equivalent for such pretensions. The amount of
that compensation is more than Syud Thoweynee is ever likely to gain from the revenues
of Zanzibar, were it to continue a dependency of Muscat, and would, moreover, by
enabling him to establish his authority over Oman, be of far greater use to him than the
sovereignty over a distant possession, the population of which are notoriously ill-affected
towards him. I should be less disposed to insist on this point, were it not that the
obligation was acknowledged by Syud Majeed himself when he first volunteered to grant
to Syud Thoweynee a yearly subsidy of 40,000 crowns. Colonel Rigby states that, during
the lifetime of the late Imam, 10,000 crowns were annually sent from Zanzibar to
Muscat on account of the tribute to the Wahabee Ameer, that this was a fixed payment.
Other sums were sent as required ; some years 10,000 crowns, and some years, if hostilities
were going on in Oman, considerably more.”* On the death of his late Highness, Syud * Appendix B,replj
Majeed, according to his own statement, wrote to Syud Thoweynee offering to remit him to Query 20.
this sum of 10,000 crowns to assist him in paying the Wahabees ; (a) and further, in case of
emergency, to assist him with his money, his influence, and his troops.f Subsequently, t Appendix L, parayielding
to the arguments or solicitations of Mahomed bin Salem, Syud Majeed eno-aged graph 3.
to raise the amount to an annual subsidy of 40,000 crowns.J * j Idem, paragraph
43. With regard to the conditions averred by Syud Majeed to have been insisted on by
him in voting this grant, namely, first, that he should be recognised by Syud Thowevnee
as his father s successor over the Zanzibar territories ; and secondly, that Syud Thoweynee
should abstain m future from all hostilities with their common brother Syud Toorkee,S 8 Idem, paragraph
there is no evidence whatever to corroborate his Highness’s allegation, and my firm 5.
conviction is that no such terms were attached to the concession. It is, moreover, worthy
of note that Syud Majeed, in his written statement, entirely overlooks what he had before
repeatedly declared, namely, that 10,000 of the stipulated sum of 40,000 crowns were to
be transferred to Syud Foorkee, and that it was on account of Syud Thoweynee’s infriíiírement
of that condition that he discontinued the payment of the subsidy to the lat^r.
Colonel Rigby, who had formerly hazarded these statements on the authority of his
Highness, il now writes consider it very unlikely that any stipulation was made || Letter No. 116 of
relative to one-fourth of the promised subsidy being paid to Syud Toorkee. I have 1859.
always had great doubts on this point, because Thoweynee and Toorkee were on bad terms
with each other at the time the agreement with Mahomed bin Salem was made, and also
because I was informed that the allowance made from the Muscat Treasury to Sohar
during the life of the late Imam was only 1,200 crowns per annum. If the whole of the
tribute to the Wahabee Chief is, and always has been, paid from the Muscat 'treasury,
it is, I consider, a strong confirmation of the doubts which I entertain, for Syud Toorkee
could have no possible claim to such a payment from the Zanzibar Treasury.”These ^AppendixB,reply
suspicions are confirmed by the tenor of Syud Majeed’s note to the customs master at to Query 25.
Zanzibar, wherein he states as follows :—‘^We have granted to our brother Thoweynee
bin Saeed a subsidy of 40,000 crowns every year from the beginning of the year 1274,
half (to be paid) during the south-west monsoon, and the other half during the north-east
monsoon,”** without hinting that the payment of the said gratuity was to be dependent on ** Appendix H.
the observance of any condition by his Highness Syud Thoweynee.
44. Under these circumstances, I am of opinion that Syud Majeed is bound to Syud
Thoweynee in the sum of 40,000 crowns per annum; and further, considering that the
existing variance between the two brothers originated in the non -fulfilment of that obligation
by the former, under the false plea that the latter had violated the attached condition,
I judge that it would be only fair that Syud Majeed should be called upon to make
good his original promise, by disbursing to Syud Thoweynee the arrears of the stipulated
subsidy due since the date when its payment was suspended.
45. A question of considerable importance, touching the duration of this subsidy, here
suggests itself. 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 lifetime.
But although the strict letter of all we know of the mutual agreement might be held to
sanction that limitation, the grounds upon which the subsidy was first offered by Syud
Majeed, and the considerations which subsequently induced him to increase the amount to
40,000 crowns per annum,ff clearly imply that he was negotiating on the part of the Appendix L, pa,
Zanzibar state, and that the subsidy was to be a pf^rmanent charge on its revenues in ragraph 5.
behalf of the Sovereign of Muscat. The transaction indeed, as far as I can judge from
the evidence adduced, was a family compact, entered into by Syud Thoweynee and Syud
Majeed as the representatives of their brothers and of the subjects of the two states,
whereby it was agreed to divide the sovereignty exercised by their late father into two
imarly equal shares, the Zanzibar state engaging, through Syud Majeed, to compensate
the Muscat state for the loss which it would sustain by the partition to the extent of
40,000 crowns per annum.
46. Recapitulating the conclusions arrived at through the foregoing discussions, I
submit
(a) The annual tribute to the Wahabees, including presents, amounts to 12,000 crowns.
X 2
0.116.
