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.

157 ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA). Imauni succeeded in establishing Ids power over the East Coast of Africa chiefly through the mutual jealousies and dissensions of the petty chiefs, who frequently sent envoys to Muscat to solicit his interference. I do not think that it would ever occur to any Arabs in Oman that they had any voice in the succession to the government of the African possessions on the ground supposed. I think they were regarded as being at the absolute disposal of the I maura ; and the fact that all the property of the State, such as ships ot war, arms, &c., were considered as the private estate of the Imaum, strengthens this opinion.”* 19. To this I reply that the mutual jealousies of the native petty chiefs were un doubtedly availed of by the late Syud Saeed to extend his conquests in Eastern Africa ; but it is equally certain that he acquired the sovereignty over Zanzibar, Peraba, and Mombasa, as also over several other localities on the African continent, in virtue oí his havino- been elected to succeed his father Syud Sultan, who had conquered them from the Portuguese. Hence, as the suffrages of the tribes of Oman contributed to invest the late Syud %aeed with supreme authority over those dependencies, it is but reasonable to sup pose that the tribes at the present day claim the same privilege still. And further, as Syud Sultan does not appear to have arrogated to himself the right to dispose of the forelo-n possessions of the kingdom, there is no valid ground for presuming that his son could leo-itlmately exercise that prerogative. Moreover, the argument drawn from a comparison of the sovereign’s right to dispose of the sovereignty, because the property of the State was considered to form part of his private estate, is fallacious. The sover^nty, as we have seen, depended on election, and, strictly speaking, the State property of Oman, was confined almost exclusively to the fortresses of the kingdom, which a successor o-enerally inherited, though not unfrequelitly obliged to coerce some of the garrisons to recoo-nise Ids supremacy. All other movable and immovable property, including what he orio-inally possessed, as well' as what he had added thereto during his reign from the public revenues, were held as belonging to the private estate of his predecessor. Such, undoubtedly is, and ever has been, the law of inheritance in the succession among the Imams and kind's of Oman, and it serves to explain what otherwise seems most anomalous in the will of the late Sultan Syud Saeed. By that instrument the testator directs that, after the payment of certain legacies, all his p^perty, including his ships of war (two only exce%1, which are bequeathed to the "Treasury of the Mussulmans that is to the State), his money, palaces, furniture, plantations, &c.,_ shall be divided among ns sundvum/cMldren "acœrdn^ as Cbxl has m-damed m II^ kw;' t butrm pmvnnmi whatever is made for the succession, and no bequests devised from any propeijty which, acrreeably with pre-existing usage, was considered tobe public,and therefore as belonging of rio-ht to his successor in the sovereignty. It was in accordance with this law that his Hio-hness Syud Maieed (who nevertheless claims the sovereignty of the Zanzibar territories ancf all the rights appertaining thereto) only sirred equally with his brothers in the inheritance left by their father. Thus Colonel Eigby says, “ Ihe ships of war, guns, stores of every description, even the arms in the possession or the troops, were set down at a valuation, and charged against the new ruler as a debt due to Ins father s estate.” f 20. The only logical inference deducible from the foregoing considerations is in strict accordance with the conclusion arrived at by the Reverend Mr. Badger after a careful inquiry into the laws which have regulated the succession among the Imaums and Kings of Oman for several centuries. He writes—" Among all the sovereigns * # * not one occurs who is recorded to have assumed or exercised the right of nominating a successor, or of disposing of his territories by will or otherwise. On the death of a ruler, the member of his family who happened to exercise the greatest influence at the time, either put himself forward, or was put forward by the people, to succeed to the sovereignty. The claim was frequently disputed by other of the relations of the deceased, and intestine family wars followed, the strongest ultimately gaining the ascendancy ; but even in such cases the rio-ht to the sovereignty does not appear to have been regarded as valid without the concurrence of the principal tribes. § 21. Havino- thus, as I conceive, fairly answered all arguments adduced in support of the contrary view, and proved, as well by the admission of His Highness Syud Majeed and of Colonel Ricrby as by historical evidence, that the sovereigns of Oman did not, in accordance with pre-established law or usage, posssess the right of disposing of tlmir dominions, it results that the claims of Syud Majeed to the sovereignty of the Zanzibar territories, as in any degree founded on the will or wishes of the late Syud Saeed, aie invalid and nugatory. 22 I proceed, in the next place, to consider the argument adduced by Syud Majeed in behalf of his claims to the sovereignty, on the ground of his having been recognised as the ruler of Zanzibar and its African dependencies by several of the foreign poweis which had previously been in alliance with his predecessor and father, the late Syud Saeed. It is unnecessary, however, to enlarge on that point, which has already been sumciently discussed in paragraph 9 of this Report ; for even admitting that the alleged recognition has actually been tendered by France and the United States of America, and subsequently by the Hanseatic Republic, || after a full investigation into the merits of the dispute re- o-ardino- the sovereignty still pending between Syud Majeed and Syud Thoweynee (which, at b^st’ is very doubtful), the fact that the two brothers have voluntarily referred the settle- 0JA6. ^3 ment Appendix, No. 8. * Appendix B, reply to Query 23. t Muscat Report, Appendix C. J Appendix K, para graph 11. § Muscat Report, Appendix B, paragraph 1. ¡I Appendix B, replies to Queries 13 and 21,

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