15 
ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA). 
tvas then supposed, lie not being one of the 
brothers, with whom this family compact was 
made, he was no longer entitled to receive the 
subsidy. Since that time, ¡however, another 
brother, one of the genuine family of Syed Saeed, 
has come and driven Azan-ben Ghias away, so 
I'bat the present state of affairs is, that we have 
brother representing Muscat, and another 
brother representing Zanzibar, both of those 
being the sons of old Syed Saeed, who made 
this original division. 
199-200. Do you consider that the award was 
a perpetual character, and that it ought to be 
Maintained, without reference to the individuality 
<^fthe defacto ruler, as an arrangement between 
Gitate and state ?—That is one of the most difficult 
Questions which I ever had before me, and one 
I’Sgarding which Indian authorities are greatly 
tbvided. My own opinion is, that as long as any 
Member of the original family of Syed Saeed is 
the sovereign at Muscat, he has a fair claim on 
the subsidy from Zanzibar, but a man of a dif 
ferent family, an usurper, wmuld not have the 
same claim ; but others entertain a different 
{»pinion ; they think it is an agreement as between 
State and state, and that the de facto ruler of 
Muscat is entitled to that subsidy, whatever his 
antecedents. I do not go so far as that ; but 
Sir William Coghlan, who arbitrated the ques 
tion, and to whom I wrote some time ago, when 
the matter of the subsidy was under discussion. 
Said that in making that award, that was his view 
201. Do you consider if the Sultan of Zanzibar 
Were relieved from the payment of the subsidy 
he would be more willing to put an end to the 
traffic in slaves ?—I have not the slightest doubt 
that he would. He has several times hinted that 
he would do so. As to the action of the British 
Government ; if any suggestion of that character 
Was made, it was at a time when a man, who might 
be considered altogether an outside usurper, was 
M possession of Muscat ; but the position of affairs 
IS very much altered by a member of the reigning 
mmily being restored to power. The Slave 
Trade Committee, of which I was a member, 
Whieh sat at the Foreign Office some time ago, 
Recommended that the remission of the subsidy 
should be considered ; but that was at a time when 
^he family of Syed Saeed were entirely exj)elled 
from Muscat ; so that the question of subsidy 
Was then a more open question than it is now. 
The Government of India, however, have an ex 
tremely strong feeling on the projrriety of main 
taining, in every case, the payment of the subsidy. 
. 202. As a matter of right?—As a matter of 
a matter in which the good faith of 
^be British Government in India is pledged ; and 
1 ^bMk we should be obliged to maintain it now 
that Syed Tourkee, who is one of the brothers, 
has come to the throne. It would have been 
comparatively easy if Azan-ben Ghias had con- 
mued to reign at Muscat, to have said. You are 
not a member of the family of Syed Saeed, and 
you are not entitled to the subsidy. 
|bink that the arrangement recom- 
Mendecl by the Committee might then have been 
Gained out .-—At the time we made this recom- 
Mendation this usurper was in power ; it would 
hot be so easy to carry it out now. 
204. You think the circumstances are rather 
altered?-The circumstances are altered since 
Mis Slave Trade Report was sent in. 
205. What is the annual amount of revenue 
b*116. 
derived by the Sultan from this traffic in slaves ? 
—Ill our Report it was stated to be about 
20,000 1. a year. I think that must be rather in 
excess of the real amount, because the subsidy is 
only about 8,000 /. 
206. W ould the general financial condition of 
the State admit of a diminution of re venue to the 
extent of the amount derived from the slave 
trade, ivithout causing serious embarrassment if 
the payment of the subsidy should still be en 
forced ?—I should say it certainly would not ; it 
would be a very large slice out of his revenue. 
I think if it was taken away from him it would 
cause such embarrassment that it would be ex 
tremely injurious to his people and to himself, 
and I do not think he could carry on his govern 
ment if he lost revenue, unless it were made up 
to him from some other source. 
207. The Indian Government are strongly in 
favour of the subsidy being continued ?—Yes. 
208. Does the Government of India attach 
much importance to its connection with Zanzi 
bar ?—There has been a good deal of conflict of 
opinion with regard to that. The present Govern 
ment say that, except as having arbritrated with 
regard to the subsidy, there is no reason whatever 
why the Indian Govermeiit should have any 
connection with it. If the Home Government 
were to decide, as regards this question of subsidy, 
that Zanzibar should no longer pay the money 
to Muscat, the Government of India would re 
commend that we should entirely withdraw from 
all connection with Zanzibar, because they say, 
that except in supporting this award they have 
no interest in the country at all. This is the 
view of the present Government of India ; but I 
wish to say, that Lord Lawrence’s Government 
expressed a totally different opinion on the 
matter. The India Office have for years been 
in communication with the Government at Bom 
bay and the Supreme Government of India re 
specting their views; and till the time of Lord 
Mayo, the answer invariably was, that it was of 
very great importance to keep up a connection 
between Zanzibar and India, because there was 
a very large trade between Zanzibar and India, 
and because our subjects went to Zanzibar. 
209. What is your own opinion on the matter ? 
—My own opinion is in favour of not severing 
the connection between the Indian Government 
and Zanzibar. 
210. What is the extent of the trade between 
India and Zanzibar ?—T have a statement here 
showing the progressive increase of imports at the 
Zanzibar Custom House; in 1861-62, they were 
245,981 ?.; in 1862 -63, 332,092/. ; in 1863-64, 
294,613 /. ; in 1866-67, 380,051 /. ; and in 1867- 
68, they were 433,693 /., of which about one-half 
is in the hands of Great Britain. That was 
taken from the last Zanzibar Administration 
Report for 1869-70. 
211. Is it on account of this commercial con 
nection, that the Indian Government has con 
sented to burden its revenues with the expenses 
of the maintenance of an agency at Zanzibar ?— 
I think almost entirely, with the exception as I 
mentioned before, that it has been obliged to 
maintain its awards and guarantees. The prin 
cipal argument urged in favour of our continuing 
our connection with Zanzibar is, that there is a 
great trade between India and Zanzibar, and 
therefore, that we should go to a certain expense 
in retaining an agency there ; but I have always 
thought it would be a more equitable arrange- 
B 4 ment 
Sir 
\ W. Kaye^ 
13 July 
1871.