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 different
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 question,
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 extremely
strong feeling on the projrriety of maintaining,
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 conmued
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 enforced
?—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 extremely
injurious to his people and to himself,
and I do not think he could carry on his government
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 Zanzibar
?—There has been a good deal of conflict of
opinion with regard to that. The present Government
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 recommend
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 Bombay
and the Supreme Government of India respecting
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 connection,
that the Indian Government has consented
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 principal
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.
