134
APPENDIX TO HEPOliT FROM SELECT COMMITTEE
Appendix, No. 8.
the Earl of Aberdeen, Syud Saeed did mean that the nomination of his two sons was to
the full sovereignty of the respective territories assigned to them. Viewed in connection
with the appointment of governors by his predecessors, and what the position of his two
sons was at the time, Khaled being then Governor of Zanzibar, and Thoweynee Governor
of Muscat, which offices it was most probable they would hold at and after his death,
Syud Saeed may have referred merely to such governorships, without designing, in any
way, to interfere with the succession or supremacy to which the precedents of his predecessors
gave him no legitimate right to nominate, and which, after his death, might have
devolved on either of his two sons, Khaled and Thow^eynee.
14. As having an inferential bearing on this point, I beg to notice here a passage from
Colonel Rigby’s Letter, No. 46 of 1859, dated 14th April. He writes: “From his
“ (Syud Saeed) having appointed his second son (Khaled) to inherit the African
“ dominions, and his third son (Thoweynee) to succeed him in the Arabian possessions,
“ it was evidently not the intention of his Highness that Zanzibar should be tributary
“ to Muscat, but that the two states should be independent of each other.” The force
of the argument thus adduced in favour of the independency of Zanzibar, on the ground
of the seniority of Khaled, is entirely destroyed by Colonel Rigby himself, in his continuation
of the foregoing quotation. He subjoins : “ The Prince Khaled was installed
“ as ruler of the African dominions during his father’s absence at Muscat, and on his
“ death, which occurred on 7th November 1854, his Highness passed over two of his
“ sons, and appointed his fourth son. Prince Majeed, to succeed his deceased brother in
“ the government of the African dominions, and it was proclaimed to all the Chief Arabs
“ in open Durbar that he was to be regarded exactly in the same position as Prince
“ Khaled had held.” Whereon I beg to remark that, as Syud Saeed, in this case,
passed over two of his sons, and appointed Majeed to Zanzibar, leaving his elder brother,
Thoweynee, at Muscat, the argument adduced in the former part of the above quotations
in favour of the independency of Zanzibar, on the score of the seniority of Khaled, falls
to the ground.
15. I come next to the will of the late Syud Saeed, a revised translation of which is
given in Appendix C. This document, it appears, was found in a box belonging to
Bint Seif, wife of his late Highness, one of the executors, who died at Zanzibar, and it
subsequently came into the possession of her daughter Azza, residing at present at
Muscat. The document bears the tokens of authenticity.
16. This will, as may be seen from the tenor of its several bequests, refers almost
exclusively to the private property of the testator; and, although drawn up 10 years
subsequent to the date of the late Syud Saeed’s letter to the Earl of Aberdeen, no
intimation is contained therein of the arrangement which had been submitted to his
Lordship. Had Syud Saeed deemed himself to possess the right of nominating a
successor, or of dividing his territories by will, it seems hardly credible that he should
have been so minute in disposing of his personal property, and yet have omitted all notice
of his wishes in those other more important particulars.
17. The only public legacy bequeathed in the will under consideration, is that of
two ships, “ to the Treasury of the Mussulmans.” I subjoin some remarks by the
Rev. Mr. Badger on this subject:—
“ The term ‘ Mussulmans,’ as here employed, is simply equivalent to that of ‘ subjects,’
“ or rather ‘citizens.’ It occurs frequently in the history of the Kings and Imams of
“ Oman in that sense ; as, for example, ‘ the pious Mussulmans met together to delibe-“
‘ rate,’ referring to the councils of the inhabitants of a town or district. The use of the
“ designation owes its origin to the religious type of Mohammedan political administra-“
tion. The phrase ‘ Treasury of the Mussulmans ’ doubtless designates the public
“ exchequer. It occurs in the following extract from the history just referred to : ‘ My
“ ‘ father went to Sultan (who was then virtually the Imam), and said to him. My lord,
“ ‘ I have examined to see whether Mohammed bin Khalfan has any houses or magazines
“ ‘ belonging to him entered in the books of the kingdom ; but I find that he has not ;
“ ‘ the houses and magazines which he had belong to the Treasury, and you are now
“ ‘ master of the Treasury.’ ”
18. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the legacy under consideration was made to
the public treasury. Only one such treasury is named, and from thence it may be
argued, with some degree of plausibility, that at the time the bequest was made Syud
Saeed only recognised one conjoined independent state.
19. The next point to be noticed is the claim adduced on behalf of Syud Saeed’s rio-ht
to dispose of his African possessions by will on the ground that several of them wereliis
by conquest, and that it was chiefly owing to his administration that the whole was consolidated
into one dominion.
20. The able historical summary given by Colonel Rigby, in his letter already referred
to, of the original settlement of the Arabs on the coast of Africa, and the subsequent
extension, together with the conquest of Zanzibar and the adjacent islands, leaves nothing
for me to add on that subject. His account coincides in the main with the native records
comprised in the history of the Kings and Imams of Oman. Seif bin Sultan, according to
the latter, at the opening of the 18th century, took Zanzibar, Mombasa, the Green
Island (?), Kilwa, and other places on the coast of Africa from the Portuguese. These
possessions
