ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OP AFRICA).
167
56. In my report from Muscat^ after carefully examining all the arguments which had
been adduced in support of this claim, I came to the conclusion that they were “ incon
clusive, apart from the reflection that they were, moreover, open to complete refutation
if the more general question of the right of the late Syud Saeed to divide his territories
is decided in the negative ; ’’ and again, that the considerations which had been urged on
the opposite side “ formed, in my opinion, a mass of evidence decidedly adverse to the
claim set forth in behalf of Syud Toorkee.”*
57. Additional research at Zanzibar fully confirms me in the foregoing conclusion. On
submitting to Colonel Rigby, for further information, the statements which he had inci
dentally transmitted to Government in behalf of Syud Toorkee, he replied : “ From what
I had always been told by Arabs at Zanzibar, and also from what Syud Hilal said, I was
under the impression that Syud Toorkee had been placed in possession of Sohar by his
father as an independent state, in the same manner as it had been formerly granted by the
Imam Ahmed, during his own life, to his son Kees.” In paragraph 17 of this report, I
have already pointed out the inaptness of the comparison here instituted ; but Colonel
Rigby subjoins, My impressions having been formed from the statements of interested
persons were probably erroneous.”t
58. Another consideration which led Colonel Rigby to conclude that Sohar was inde
pendent of Muscat, he expresses in these words; I think that Sohar must have been
regarded as an independent state, as an engagement was entered into between the British
Government and Seif bin Hamood, Chief of Sohar, dated 22nd May 1849, for the preven
tion of the slave trade, and an Act of the British Parliament, 16 Viet. c. 16, dated 9th
May 1853, was passed to give effect to this engagement (wiWe Hertslet’s Treatise, vol. IX.,
page 715).} In the year 1849 Sohar had acquired, through the lapse of nearly a
century, a nominal independence, though it is extremely improbable that the original
concession by Sultan Ahmed involved any such privilege ; % but however that may be.
Colonel Rigby appears to overlook the fact that Sohar was captured by the late Syud
Saeed in 1851, and continued up to his death a dependency of Muscat.” ü
59. Syud Majeed, when questioned on the subject, frankly admitted that no proof existed
to establish Syud Toorkee-s pretensions to the independent sovereignty of Sohar, and in
his appended written statement, his Highness says, I do not know what Toorkee’s real
position is, whether he is independent or subject to the ruler of Muscat. What I only
know is, that our late father made over Oman and its dependencies to my brother
Thoweynee, in the same way that he made over Zanzibar and its dependencies to our
brother Khaled, and on his death he made them over to me.”5i
60. The foregoing arguments will, I trust, be regarded as decisive against the claims
of Syud Toorkee to the independent sovereignty of Sohar. In a political point of view,
more especially in its bearings on the future tranquillity of Oman, and the peace of the
maritime tribes in the Persian Gulf, it is fortunate that the question admits of no other
solution ; for Syud Toorkee is represented as being a dangerous intriguer and a most
extortionate ruler. In my letter No. 8 of the 27th June, I submitted to Government a
general account of his sinister proceedings, and what steps I had taken to arrest them.
The letter which I addressed to him on that occasion was so far successful that he subse
quently sought an interview with Syud Thoweynee ; but his Highness declined any nego
tiations with him until the final decision of the Right Honourable the Governor General
was made known. Syud Toorkee’s reply to my letter, which I have since received through
Mr. Rassam, is attached in Appendix M.
61. Should the Honourable the Governor in Council concur in the conclusion which I
have formed on this subject, it will be most desirable, in justice to the ruler of
Muscat, as also in order to put an end to the unsettled state of affairs in Oman, owing to
the equivocal position of Syud Toorkee, that his Highness Syud Thoweynee should be
officially informed of his recognition by the Government of India as the paramount
sovereign of Sohar. It is equally expedient that the same decision should be formally
made known to Syud Toorkee ; and also that, after due deliberation, his claim to be inde
pendent of the Sultan of Muscat has been disallowed. A superadded friendly injunction
to both parties, to act in concert for the welfare of the country might lead to a permanent
reconciliation between them; and I know no person better qualified than Mr. Rassam to
make these communications, or more likely to bring about a good understanding between
the two brothers. As Mr. Rassam’s appointment is only temporary, I venture to suggest
that his services may be secured in this matter before his departure from Muscat.
62. I presume that Syud Majeed is, in some measure, prepared for the tenor of the
foregoing decision regarding Sohar ; nevertheless, considering the relations which have
hitherto existed betwixt him and his brother Syud Toorkee (relations which the doubtful
position of the latter and his own misunderstanding with Syud Thoweynee may have jus
tified for the time), it appears to me advisable that his Highness should be informed that
the Government of India have fully recognised the right of Syud Thoweynee to the
sovereignty of Sohar. Such a formal declaration, by putting his Highness on his guard
against fostering any future intrigues of Syud Toorkee, may prove an additional security
for the peace of Oman.
63. Before bringing this report to a close, I venture to offer one or two suo-gestions
0.116. x4 ° with
Appendix, No. ft.
* Muscat Report,
paragraphs 30 to 33,
f Appendix B, reply
to Query 41.
X Appendix B, reply
to Query 8.
§ Vide supra, para
graph 17.
I; Government
Selections, Persian
Gulf, page 231.
Appendix L, para
graph 5.
