188

APPENDIX  TO  REPORT  FROM  SELECT  COMMITTEE

Appendix,  No.  8.  force  of  arms,  when,  at  the  request  of  the  Government  of  Bombay,  he  abandoned  this
intention,  and  agreed  to  submit  his  claim  to  the  arbitration  of  the  Governer  General  oí
India.
2.  Syud  Thoweynee,  it  would  appear  from  Brigadier  Coghlan’s  first  report,  rests  his
claim  upon  the  fact  that  he  is  sovereign  of  Muscat,  and  that  in  that  character  he  is  de  jare
sovereign  of  Zanzibar  also,  as  a  dependency  of  Muscat.  He  does  not  base  his  title  as
ruler  of  Muscat  on  any  right  or  custom  of  primogeniture,  but  on  the  fact  of  his  recognition ­
  by  the  tribes  of  Oman.  He  denies  that  his  father  left  any  will,  or  made  any  clear
indication  of  his  wishes  in  connection  with  the  succession  to  his  dominions.  The  only  will
which  the  late  Imam  left  related  to  his  private  personal  property  ;  but  it  contained  one
provision  which  Syud  Thoweynee  contends  is  opposed  to  the  assumption  that  lie  intended  to
erect  Zanzibar  into  a  separate  sovereignty.  That  provision  was,  that  the  Imam’s  two
ships,  the  “  Caroline”  and  the  Feidh  Alim,”  were  to  be  given  after  his  death  to  the
treasury  of  the  Mussulmans  as  a  legacy  from  him.  It  is  contended  by  Syud  Thoweynee
that  the  treasury  of  the  Mussulmans  meant  the  treasury  of  Muscat,  and  that  therefore  the
late  Imam  virtually  recognised  only  one  public  exchequer.
3.  It  will  be  useful  to  consider  and  dispose  at  once  of  the  argument  involved  in  this
assertion.  The  Honourable  the  Governor  in  Council  has  no  doubt  that,  by  the  treasury
of  the  Mussulmans,  the  treasury  of  Muscat  was  intended  ;  but  the  deduction  drawn  from
these  premises  he  considers  to  be  too  large.  He  regards  the  facts  in  this  light  ;  the
sovereignty  of  Muscat  is  in  some  degree  a  hierarchy  ;  a  sacred  character  attaches  to  the
Imam  ;  a  bequest  to  the  treasury  of  Muscat  is  therefore  a  pious  offering.  The  late  Syud
Saeed  had  long  been  a  resident  at  Zanzibar  ;  it  seems  therefore  to  the  Honourable  the
Governor  in  Council  a  natural  act,  and,  for  one  in  the  Imam’s  position,  a  natural  mode
of  expressing  his  wishes  for  him  to  bequeath  a  portion  of  his  private  property  to  the  land
of  his  birth  and  the  local  centre  of  his  religion.  He  had  chosen  Zanzibar  as  his  residence,
but  in  the  last  act  of  his  life  he  makes  a  bequest  to  Muscat,  with  mingled  solemnity  and
affection,  as  the  treasury  of  the  Mussulmans.  The  Honourable  the  Governor  in  Council
does  not  consider  that  the  fact  advanced  by  Syud  Thoweynee,  if  strained  to  the  utmost,
could  be  regarded  as  affording  a  clear  indication  of  the  late  Imam’s  wishes,  or  as  outweighing ­
  the  inferences  to  be  drawn  from  Syud  Saeed’s  letter  to  Lord  Aberdeen.  But
as  the  general  tenor  of  Syud  Thoweynee’s  argument  is,  that  the  late  Imam  possessed  no
right  of  regulating  the  succession,  the  provision  regarding  the  bequest  to  the  treasury  of
the  Mussulmans  is  not  of  material  importance  in  connectioon  with  his  claim,  although  it
demanded  notice  from  the  Honourable  the  Governor  in  Council  in  the  present  place.
4.  But  the  main  argument  of  Syud  Thoweynee,  that  he  was  recognised  by  the  tribes  of
Oman  as  sovereign  of  Muscat,  and  that  in  that  character  he  is  de  jure  sovereign  of  Zanzibar
also,  must,  in  the  opinion  of  the  Honourable  the  Governor  in  Council,  suffice  to  place  the
defacto  ruler  of  Zanzibar  in  the  position  of  one  who  must  prove  his  title.  Syud  Majeed
does  not  dispute  his  brother’s  right  to  the  sovereignty  of  Muscat  ;  the  great  question,  then,
to  be  decided  is,  as  under  the  late  rulers  the  sovereignty  of  their  conquests,  Zanzibar,
&c.,  was  united  to  that  of  Muscat,  can  Syud  Majeed  establish  a  valid  title  to  the  possession
of  Zanzibar  as  a  distinct  sovereignty  ?  This  question  leads  the  Hononrable  the  Governor
in  Council  to  the  consideration  of  Brigadier  Coghlan’s  report  of  the  4th  December.
5.  Brigadier  Coghlan  in  this  elaborate  report,  after  stating  the  precautionary  measure
which  he  had  adopted  of  obtaining  from  Syud  Majeed  a  formal  agreement  to  abide  by  the
arbitration  of  the  Right  Honourable  the  Governor  General  of  India,  proceeds  to  discuss  the
grounds  on  which  th^e  present  ruler  of  Zanzibar  rests  his  claims  to  the  sovereignty  of  that
portion  of  his  late  father’s  dominions.
6.  The  grounds  are  thus  stated  :—
I.  The  will  or  wishes  of  his  late  Highness  Syud  Saeed.
II.  The  recognition  of  Syud  Majeed  by  foreign  Powers.
III.  His  virtual  recognition  by  his  rival  brother  Syud  Thoweynee  of  Muscat.
IV.  His  election  as  their  sovereign  by  the  chiefs  of  Zanzibar  and  its  African
Dependencies.
7.  Of  the  grounds  thus  stated,  the  2nd  and  3rd  may  be  at  once  disposed  of.  With
*  respect  to  the  recognition  by  foreign  powers,  it  will  be  observed  that  Her  Majesty  and
the  British  Government  did  not  allude  to  Syud  Majeed’s  sovereignty  in  the  replies
returned  to  the  letters  announcing  his  father’s  death,  and  that  there  is  no  reason  for
supposing  that  the  French  and  American  Governments  were  ever  aware  that  a  claimant  to
the  throne  of  Zanzibar  existed  in  the  person  of  the  elder  brother  of  Syud  Majeed-  They
replied  to  the  defacto  sovereign;  but  no  argument  can  be  raised  upon  this  circumstance
in  favour  of  the  assertion  that  Syud  Majeed  was  the  de  jure  sovereign.
8.  So  with  respect  to  the  virtual  recognition  by  Syud  Thoweynee.  It  is  clear  that  an
agreement  was  negotiated,  in  virtue  of  which  Syud  Majeed  was  to  be  left  in  possession  of
his  father’s  African  dominions  on  payment  to  his  brother,  the  ruler  of  Muscat,  of  an
annual  sum  of  40,000  crowns  ;  but  this  payment  is  contended  by  the  one  party  to  have
been  a  tribute,  and  by  the  other  party  to  have  been  a  subsidy  or  gift,  implying  no
inferiority  on  the  part  of  the  donor  towards  the  recipient.  There  appears  great  resson
to  believe  that  the  agent  of  Syud  Thoweynee  deceived  both  parties  ;  and  there  certainly  was
no