Report from the Select Committee on Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa); together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index

Bibliographic data

Monograph

Identifikator:: 832922498

URN:: urn:nbn:de:zbw-retromon-79587

Document type:: Monograph

Title:: Report from the Select Committee on Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa); together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index

Place of publication:: [London]

Publisher:: [The House of Commons]

Year of publication:: 1871

Scope:: 1 Online-Ressource (XXIV, 242 S.)

Collection:: Economics Books

Usage license:: Get license information via the feedback formular.

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.

Access restriction

Copyright

fullscreen: Report from the Select Committee on Slave Trade (East Coast of Africa); together with the proceedings of the Committee, minutes of evidence, appendix and index

Monograph

Table of contents

Download

Monograph

This page

Image fragment

Citation links

Citation recommendation