ON SLAVE TRADE (EAST COAST OF AFRICA).
133
possessions, and of himself to that of his Arabian possessions, does not necessarily imply Appendix, No. 8.
the independence of either brother, and that therefore the right of the Muscat State to '
the general sovereignty is unaflPected by the arrangement contemplated by his father,
which had reference merely to the Governorships of the two territories, and not to the
supreme rule over them. That supremacy, he contends, belongs of right to the candidate
who succeeds to the parent State, and who is recognised as ruler over it by the tribes of
Oman ; consequently, if his father intended anytliing beyond what he conceives to have
been his meaning when writing to Lord Aberdeen, he assumed a prerogative which is
disallowed by the laws and customs of the people, and, as such, cannot justly be regarded
as legal. Syud Thoweynee further maintains that as the rightful sovereign, recognised
by the tribes of Oman, he was quite justified, as well by the custom of his predecessors as
bv his position, in attempting to coerce his brother Majeed into an acknowledgment of his
supremacy. Such, he alleges, has always been the course hitherto pursued in similar
cases ; and had he not, at the instance of the British, relinquished the expedition prepared
to that end, he fully believes that Syud Majeed would have been forced to yield the
recognition which was justly demanded of him.
8. The foregoing arguments advanced by Syud Thoweynee call for the most careful
attention, as the several points dwelt upon may be said to comprise the important question
of right as connected with the succession to the sovereignty over the dominions of his late
Highness Syud Saeed.
9. I find, then, on examination, that among the Arabs of Oman there is no recognised
law determining the succession to the I mam ship (by which I mean the supremacy or
sovereignty). Primogeniture gives no claim to succession ; and, further, in retracing the
history of the rulers of Oman for the last two centuries and a half, it will be seen that the
brother, uncle, or cousin of a deceased sovereign, succeeded to the sovereignty as frequently
as any of his own children. The succession was generally confined to the same
family or dynasty ; but even that restriction appears to have been the result of the influence
which its members had acquired over the people, and the candidate who was strongest
in that respect usually attained the supremacy. In no one instance, indeed, do we find
that a successor has been able to maintain his position without the suifragcs of the chiefs
of the principal tribes ; and, in every case recorded, such a concurrence is noted as confirmino-
the newly appointed sovereign in his authority. I may here observe that the
testimony of Syud Hik'd as given by Colonel Pigby in his letter, No. 46, of 1859, dated
April 14th, is strikingly confirmative of the preceding opinion, Colonel Rigby writes :—
“ On my questioning Syud Hilal regarding the customs of the Chiefs of Oman regard-“
ino- succession, he stated that no law cf primogeniture is recognised ; that might,
“ coupled with the election by the tribes, is the only right ; that, generally, on the death
“ of a chief, his sons disputed the succession, and that the one who had the most influence
“ with the tribe, or who gave the greatest hopes of being an efficient leader, was elected.
(( That it was on this principle the late Imam was himself elected, to the exclusion of his
“ elder brother.”
10. From the above statements regarding the succession, as it has hitherto prevailed in
the kingdom of Oman, it is apparent that the ruling sovereign did not possess the right of
naming his successor, and not one instance is to be found of any attempt to exercise that
prerogative. During their lifetime the sovereigns of Oman, either of their own free will,
or for political purposes, or because the parties so advanced were too powerful for them,
were accustomed to api)oint difterent members of their family and others to the governorships
of certain districts, and in some cases to grant them the same, with the implied
understanding that it was in perpetuity ; but such concessions as the latter were generally
forced from them ; nevertheless, the districts so transferred were still regarded as fiefs of
the kingdom, and only independent of it in what concerned their internal administration.
The governors were removable at the will of the sovereign, and the feudal chiefs or lords,
in case of becoming obnoxious to the suzerain, were enjoined or forced into obedience,
unless they were powerful enough to resist his mandates.
11. Such I believe to be a correct statement of the custom with regard to succession, as
it has prevailed among the people of Oman, and of the prerogatives of their sovereigns
over the territories comprehended within their dominions. The account is mainly based
on a masterly paper given in Ai)pendix (B.), and drawn up by the Reverend Mr. Badger
from an Arabic History of the Kings and Imams of Oman. I submit the Paper to the
careful perusal of the Honourable the Governor in Council as a document of the utmost
importance bearing on the Muscat-Zanzibar question now before the Government.
12. I am next called on to notice Syud Thoweynee’s plea that the late Syud Saeed
did not partition his tendtories, as has been asserted, either by will or otherwise. At first
sight the letter addressed by Syud Saeed to the Earl of Aberdeen, dated 23rd July
1844 {see Appendix A.), seems conclusive that his Highness did intend that his African
and Arabian possessions respectively should be given in full sovereignty to his sons,
Khaled and Thoweynee. It is equally clear, however, that, according to the custom
which had heretofore prevailed among the sovereigns of Oman, Syud Saeed did not
legitimately possess the right either of nominating a successor or of partitioning his
territories.
13. But I think it is fairly open to question whether, in the arrangement submitted to
0.116. R 3 the
