ox SLAVE TJRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA).
173
lifetime, given Soliar to Kees and Suik to Mahomed bin Ahmed. Are you certain that Appendix, No. 8.
those chiefs were not still regarded as feudatories to the suzerain of Oman?
A. 1 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 prevention of the slave trade, and an Act of the British
Parliament, 16 Viet. c. 16, dated 9fh May 1853, was passed to give effect to this engagement
{ride Herlslet’s Treaties, vol. IX., page 715% I have no information regarding Suik,
except what was told to me by Syud Hilal, who was chief of that territory up to the year
1828, and he stated to me as a proof that he was then an independent prince, that several
of the Bedouin tribes paid him tribute. The exact relation of Soh.ar and Suik to Muscat
could probably he ascertained from the records of the Bushire residency.
Q. 9.—You adduce the alleged intention of Syud Saeed to give Zanzibar to his second No. 4G, of 1859.
son K haled, and Muscat to his third son Thoweynee,as proving that his late highness intended
Zanzibar to he independent of Muscat. But does not that argument fail when, on the
death of Khaled, Thooenee became virtually the first son in consequence of Hilal having
been disinherited by his father.
J,— Sy\\d Hilal adduced as a proof of the late Imam’s intention to render his African
possessions altogether independent of Muscatafter his own deatli, that, afer he disinherited
his eldest son, he appointed his second son to succeed to the government of his African
possessions, and his third son to succeed him at Muscat; so that, supposing such not to
have been his intention, the elder sem would have been subordinate to the younger. On
the death of the second son Khaled, the Imam appointed his fourth surviving son Majeed to
occupy the same position which Kaled had held. Majeed was a favourite son, whilst
Thoweynee had caused his father great trouble and anxiety by his quarrels with the chiefs
and tribes in Oman.
Q. 10. In like manner, d( es not Syud Hillal’s argument fail when he attempts to
establish the prospective independency of Zanzibar from the fact that Syud Saeed iiad taken
up his abode at the latter place and appointed his second son Khaled as governor there?
I mean, does not the argument lose its foice when, by the death of Khaled, Thoweynee
became the senior son ?
A.—I understood S\ud Hilal to mean that, so long as the late Imam made Muscat his
permanent residence and seat of government, Zanzibar and the African possessions were
considered as dependencies of Muscat; but when the Imam transferred the seat of Government
to Zanzibar, and made it his permanent residence, it could no longer be regarded,
according to the ideas of Arabs, as a dependency of Muscat, and that consequently, during
the life of the late Imam, Zanzibar had ceased tobe a dependency, that Zanzibar and
Muscat were regarded as two independent territories under one ruler, similar to the
connection whic h existed between Great Britain and Hanover.
Q, 11.—You attempt to show that Thoweynee's claim to Muscat is as questionable as that No. 40, of 1869.
of Majeed to Zanzibar. Unless the late Syud Saeed had the right of dividing his territories
bv will, it would undoubtedly be so ; but if Thoweynee were to rest his claims on election
and the recoo nifion of the tribes, would not such suffrage, according to the custom hitherto
prevailing in°Oman with regard to the succession, give him a superior right ?
A.—I think it would. 1 think, if a ruler of Oman were to appoint as his successor a
person who was not acceptable to the Arab tribes and chiefs, that they would refuse to
acknowledge him, and elect as their ruler a person who was more popular with them.
Q, 12.—To what place and ruler were ynu accredited on your appointment as British
Agent and Her Majesty’s Consul ?
^ I ^vas appointed as “British Agent at Zanzibar” by the Bombay Government, and
subsequently was appointed as “ Her Majesty’s Consul at Zanzibar.”
Q, 13.—Are you aware to whom the other foreign Consuls at Zanzibar are accredited?
—The French Consul and United Slates Consul are accredited to the Sultan of Zanzibar,
and also to the Sultan of Muscat. The Consul of the Hanseatic Republics of
Lubeck, Bremen, and Hamburg, is accredited to his Highness Syud Majeed, Sultan of
Zanzibar. He is nut accredited to the Sultan of Muscat, as the republics have no treaty
with that prince. . .
Q 14. What do you believe would be the result if the suffrages of the principal chiefs
at Zanzibar were taken; would the majority be in favour of Thoweynee or Majeed ?
j In favour of Syud Majeed. The only persons at Zanzibar who have shown themselves
to be inimical to Syud Majeed are some of the chiefs of the El-Harth tribe. Their rebellion
last year was not intended to favour either Syud Thoweynee or Syud Barghash, but with the
hope of getting rid of the whole family of the late Imam, and thus obtaining possession of
the government.
Q. 15.—You remark that, with the exception of a few of the great slave proprietors of No. 46, of 1859.
the El-Harth tribe, there is no party at Zanzibar favourable to I'howeynee ; and again, that
the faction opposed to Majeed is “ utterly contemptible.” How do you reconcile these state- No. 45, of 1859.
ments with the position which the El-Harth maintained on the occasion of the erneute of
October 1859, when Majeed was unable to coerce them without the assistance of a British No 103, of 1859.
force ?
^ On the occasion of the rebellion of Syud Barghash, the position which he occupied
in the interior of the island was a very strong one. He had secretly prepared it for defence
and armed it with cannon. No Arabs or Beloochees would storm such a position; and as
it was well provisioned, it might have held out for a long time. Syud Barghash had plenty
0.U6. T3 of
